skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 50331 Find in a Library
Title: TWO PROBLEMS OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN PROBATION (FROM AUSTRALIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM, 2D ED., 1977, BY DUNCAN CHAPPELL AND PAUL WILSON - SEE NCJ-50316)
Author(s): C N H BAGOT
Corporate Author: Butterworth
Canada
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 14
Sponsoring Agency: Butterworth
Scarborough, Ontario M1P 451, Canada
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)
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; Australia; Critiques; Discretionary decisions; Privileged communications; Probation or parole officers
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50331

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.