Probation practice, past and present, is under-researched in Ireland, with limited attention paid to the personal accounts of the people of probation such as administrators, probation officers, clients and rehabilitation workers. This article presents findings from the first phase of a project which aims to construct a comprehensive and multi-faceted historical account of probation practice in Ireland from the perspective of core stakeholders. It begins with an overview of its 'formal' history, before presenting key findings from interviews with probation officers who began work in the 1960s and 1970s. The core objectives of the project are to shed light on probation officers' occupational identities, map the probation sub-field, and bridge the 'governmentality gap' between official and frontline narratives; goals that are achieved through the application of an oral history methodology. A thematic framework of analysis is employed in order to better hear the individual and collective voices at the frontline of probation in Ireland during the timeframe.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and evaluate, as a potential research template, a pan-European quantitative survey, the Eurobarometer on Experiencing Supervision (EES). The tool was developed and tested across eight jurisdictions in order to evaluate its accuracy and utility with regard to comparative research. In addition, the paper illustrates the type of data this tool can generate and how this data can be used to improve supervision practices around the world. In brief, EES covers eight core domains of supervision: supervision as a human service, offender’s perception regarding the supervisor, the relationship between the offender and the supervisor, supervision and practical help, supervision and compliance, breach practice, supervision and rehabilitation and the offender’s involvement and participation. Overall, the tool is considered useful and promising. However, further research is required in order to demonstrate its full potential.

A divisive law from the outset, the diminished responsibility defence has continued to arouse criticism since its inception over fifity years ago under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. Increasing pressure from academics, practitioners, and mental health professionals, among others, to restructure the law has resulted in a reformulation of the wording of section 2 under the unassuming auspices of section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This paper examines the new definition of diminished responsibility on two levels: the broader context and structural significance of the Act and section 52's place within it; and, the technical detail of the section itself. In so doing, consideration is given as to whether the new law appeases the critics of the old, in addition to whether the Government has succeeded in bringing to bear its objectives of clarity, fairness and effectiveness.

N/A

Harboured between full excuses and mitigatory factors, with its application restricted to murder only, the doctrine of partial excuse presents as both a procedural irregularity and a theoretical outlier. Perhaps owing to its problematic nature and limited reach, the site and scope of the doctrine has received scant scholarly attention. This paper signals the potential of partial excuse as a means of addressing criticisms pertaining to moral injustice at the heart of responsibility attribution. In particular, it aims to set the scene for future theoretical development in this area by dismantling the three familiar arguments against expanding partial defences beyond homicide. First, it clarifies the nature of partial excuse by questioning the apparent dependency of the doctrine on the mandatory life sentence for murder, arguing that partial excuse can function independently of both penalty and offence. Next, it considers the conceptual challenge posed by the notion of “partial responsibility”, before attending finally to the practical obstacles facing an expansion of the doctrine. Ultimately, the paper concludes that the doctrine can apply to all offence categories, and that deeper consideration is needed on the question of whether or not it ought to apply universally.