TWO PROBLEMS OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN PROBATION (FROM AUSTRALIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM, 2D ED., 1977, BY DUNCAN CHAPPELL AND PAUL WILSON - SEE NCJ-50316)

• NCJ Number: 50331
• Author(s): C N H BAGOT
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 14 pages
• Corporate Author: Butterworth
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

THE DISCRETION OF THE PROBATION OFFICER IN BRINGING PAROLE VIOLATIONS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SUPERVISING COURT AND HIS CLAIM TO PRIVILEGE AS A WITNESS BEFORE OTHER THAN THE SUPERVISORY COURT ARE EXAMINED.

Abstract

IN CONSIDERING THE DISCRETION OF THE PROBATION OFFICER, THE FOLLOWING TOPICS ARE DISCUSSED: HIS AUTHORITY, HIS INTERPRETATION OF PROBATION STATUTES, CRIMINAL LIABILITIES OF THE PROBATION OFFICER FOR NONDISCLOSURE OF PAROLE VIOLATIONS, SOME GUIDELINES FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROBATION SERVICE AND THE COURT. THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE SUGGESTED FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY PROBATION OFFICERS CONFRONTED BY A CLEAR BREACH OF THE PROBATION ORDER: (1) ALL THE ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION OPEN TO THE PROBATION OFFICER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND THE ONE WHICH BEST PROMOTES THE REHABILITATION OF THE PROBATIONER SELECTED, EXCEPT WHERE IMPRISONMENT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM FURTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE PROBATIONER AND WHERE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE VIOLATION WOULD BE UNDULY MINIMIZED IF PROBATION WERE NOT REVOKED. IN EXAMINING A PROBATION OFFICER'S CLAIM TO PRIVILEGE, THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS ARE TREATED: THE CLAIM FOR PRIVILEGE AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THE KIND OF PRIVILEGE SUGGESTED, AND THE PRESENT LEGAL POSITION ON THE MATTER. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IN THE WITNESS BOX, THE OFFICER SHOULD BE ACCORDED PRIVILEGE ONLY IN PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE NOT HELD IN THE SUPERVISING COURT; FOR INFORMATION VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED BY A CLIENT WHO CAME TO THE PROBATION OFFICER, OR WHICH CAME FROM A COLLATERAL SOURCE. THE CLIENT MAY WAIVE PRIVILEGE; FOR INFORMATION ABOUT A CLIENT CONSISTING OF FACTS OR DIAGNOSTIC OPINION, THE REVELATION OF WHICH MAY PSYCHOLOGICALLY HARM THE PROBATIONER OR INHIBIT REHABILITATION, THE RIGHT TO CLAIM PRIVILEGE SHOULD BE VESTED IN THE PROBATION OFFICER; AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE PROBATION OFFICER WOULD BE PRIVILEGED TO WITHOLD SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLE, PROVIDED IT DOES NOT CONSIST OF CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION MADE BY ANY MEANS TO THE PROBATION OFFICER OR OF DIAGNOSTIC OPINION FORMED BY HIM. (RCB)