Independent serious further offence review of Damien Bendall

STATEMENT FROM THE PROBATION INSTITUTE

The Independent Serious Further Offences Review of the Damien Bendall case is a difficult and distressing read. We would like to encourage all our members, practitioners, academics and wider organisations to read this review. There is serious criticism of practice. There is clear recognition of the huge pressures on probation going back to at least 2016, including the ongoing challenges for senior probation officers struggling to supervise the management of cases in a way that enables probation practitioners to effectively manage and reduce risk of harm.

Among the serious concerns is the inappropriate allocation of this case to a young Asian Probation Services Officer with only 6 months experience in the probation service. Damien Bendall had committed offences of violence against Asian men and claimed to be a member of a white supremacist organisation. This aspect of the case reminds us of the very critical HMI report on race equality in Probation published in 2020, and further emphasises the need for urgent action on race equality.

The review also draws attention, not sufficiently in our view, to the inadequacy of the fast delivery verbal report which was used to inform the court sentencing Damien Bendall in June 2021. The Probation Institute is firmly of the view that in all cases - but particularly where there is knowledge of alcohol abuse, children and serious previous convictions - fast delivery verbal reports are not appropriate, and cases should be adjourned for full reports.  We would want to ask why the court found this type of report suitable given the previous convictions? And why the court considered it right to make both a curfew order and an alcohol treatment order to an address where there were children - on the basis of the fast delivery verbal report without further enquiries. The justice system must be collaborative and function as a system with all players accepting responsibility for the sentencing decisions. It is not enough simply to blame the probation practitioners.

Download from full review from HMIP