View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

e amended to delete the requirement for a prior finding in relation to
imprisonment.” (O’Malley2006:481).
As noted community service orders were introduced into Ireland in the face of a
burgeoning crisis of prison overcrowding. Any new penal measure which would add to
the prison population, especiallyshort sentences imposed bythe District Court, specifically
the target group for the newsanction, was to be steadfastlyavoided. The Minister had the
benefit of research done by Pease (1977) and Young (1979) in England and Wales which
showed that courts in that jurisdiction sometimes used the penaltyof communityservice in
a manner where a convicted person would not always have received a custodial sentence.
It must be emphasised however that it was not, strictly speaking, a requirement to have a
custodial sentence in mind when contemplating a communityservice order in England and
Wales, as the threshold for imposing a communityservice order there was for “ an offence
punishable with imprisonment” (Section 14, Criminal Justice Act 1972) rather than in
direct substitution for a custodial penalty in the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic (Section
2, Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983). In other words the offence defined
the threshold for community service in England and Wales whereas in Ireland the first
choice of penaltybythe court i.e. a custodial sentence, defined the threshold for the use of
communityservice as a sanction.
In the years after the introduction of community service in Ireland, the prison over-
crowding crisis grew even more acute. This same prison population comprised a large
number of prisoners sentenced to short terms of imprisonment by the District Court who
were required to be released under the shedding procedure to make way for newer
committals from the courts andin particular the District Court (O’Mahony1992:92).
The value for money study by the Comptroller and Auditor General (2002) on the
Probation Service revealed for the first time the true cost of implementing a community
service order. The report fully accounted for the costs of breach proceedings and the
consequential prison costs which would be necessary to be expended on receiving
prisoners sentenced to custody by the courts for breach of community service orders.
This figure as previously noted was in line with international rates of compliance by
offenders on community service orders at circa 81%. Therefore, one in five community
service participants were breached and sentenced according to the Comptroller and
190