Search

Sentencing guidelines have been slowly evolving in England and Wales since 1998. Definitive guidelines now exist for all common offences. This jurisdiction is the only one outside the United States to develop formal, numerical guidelines which are presumptively binding on courts. Despite their unique status - as the only alternative to the grid-based schemes found in many US states - the English guidelines have attracted almost no attention from sentencing scholars. This article describes the latest developments in England and Wales. As a result of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 much has changed: a new departure test has been created, and the old statutory bodies have been replaced by a single new Council which has issued a new format of guideline which will become the model to replace the old format. These important changes are discussed and some lessons drawn for other jurisdictions seeking to structure sentencing without resort to the two dimensional sentencing grids found across the United States. © The Author(s) 2012.

In the summer of 2001, the Home Office issued the Report of the Sentencing Review containing over 50 recommendations to reform the sentencing and parole systems in England and Wales. The White Paper, Justice for All, was published in 2002. The proposals constitute the most significant reform package in decades. A number of these proposals - such as the creation of a detailed sentencing guideline scheme, new sentencing options and recommendations to improve public knowledge of sentencing decisions - could well have a salutary impact on the sentencing process. However, the heart of the reform package contains an attempt to achieve the impossible: to reconcile within the same guiding statute (and sentencing guideline scheme) the conflicting sentencing philosophies of desert and utilitarianism. This article explores some consequences of the criminal record provisions by reference to the experience with sentencing reform in North America.

Research on public opinion over the past three decades has consistently established that the British public are critical of sentencers, and that this criticism exists independent of crime trends and even dramatic changes in criminal justice policies. This finding points to the possibilities that the findings are an artefact of the approach used by these surveys or that public opinion is formed in ignorance of actual practice. The 1996 British Crime Survey (BCS) contained a section of questions designed to test these hypotheses. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their knowledge of, as well as attitudes towards, sentencing practice and sentencers. Results indicate that judges received significantly more negative evaluations than any other group of criminal justice professionals. The public systematically under-estimate the severity of sentencing patterns, and this is significantly related to attitudes to sentencers. When asked to provide a sentence in a specific case of burglary, members of the public favoured sentences that were on balance little different from, and if anything more lenient than, current sentencing practice. Discussion focuses on the policy implications of these findings, as well as their relation to research in other jurisdictions.