View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

control can have the effect of diverting offenders from prison, particularly as technical
breaches of such programmes, such as curfews, may trigger breaches which result in
imprisonment. Such offenders might, but for the introduction of such measures, have
receiveda far less onerous penaltypreviously(Von Hirsch 1990).
This recent trend to combine community service with other methods of disposal may
incorporate aspects which will make compliance by the offender with community service
more unlikely, as the opportunity to breach not only the community service order but
other limiting requirements on the offender`s lifestyle will increase. Although, completion
of the community service order is essential to avoid proceedings for breach against the
offender, the difficulties encountered between the probation officer and the offender to
ensure compliance, have already been noted (Vass 1990; Eysenck 1986). It is probable,
that any additional compliance required of the offender may put in jeopardy the
completion of the community service order by the offender, if he is less motivated. The
retention of the community service order as a discrete penal option is highlighted by this
negative scenario.
The operation of community service in England, Wales and Scotland over a number of
years allows one to draw certain tentative conclusions about its structure, operation and
impact as a penal measure. At the initial stage a probation officer must assess the offender
as suitable for community service and must indicate to the court that work is available.
Suitability of the offender for community service turns essentially upon the assessment of
risk to the beneficiaries of the scheme by the deployment of offenders who might re-
offend in situ or behave violentlytowards other co-offenders or beneficiaries. In practice,
risk to the beneficiarycommunityhas been a minimum problem (Roberts 1980) where the
professional experience of probation officers in making such assessments was used to
accuratelyreflect the lowincidence of offending within communityservice schemes. 21
21 In DPP –v- Timothy Nelligan 18th April 2008 Cork District Court the defendant, Mr. Nelligan was found by the Probation Service to be unsuitable for community service on the
basis of a prior conviction for arson. The probation officer’s report indicated that for health and safety reasons the defendant would not be suitable. His solicitor, Mr. Buttimer,
submitted that the alternative was a custodial sentence and accordinglyhis client was being doublypenalised. A possible judicial reviewof the Probation Service determination was
consideredbut abandonedbythe defence. In the event, Mr. Nelligan received acustodial sentence which is under appeal at the time of writing(Irish Examiner 19 April 2008)
110