Search

Sentencing for multiple offences poses many challenges and becomes even more complex when the crimes resulted in fatalities. This article uses the sentences imposed following convictions in the Essex lorry case to pose some general questions about the sentencing of multiple victim manslaughters. The four principal offenders were convicted of 39 counts of unlawful act manslaughter and conspiracy to facilitate unlawful immigration into the UK. The analysis identifies several ways in which the sentences ultimately imposed failed to adequately distinguish between offenders of very different levels of culpability. First, all four principal offenders were assigned to the same level of culpability in the manslaughter guideline. Second, although the court could have distinguished the offenders to reflect their different culpability levels, the same Starting Point sentence was imposed on all offenders. Third, the sentencing uplifts to reflect the multiple counts were similar across offenders of very different culpabilities. Fourth, the differential additional punishments for the conspiracy conviction — which would have separated the offenders' time in custody further — were washed out by being made concurrent. As a result of these decisions, the final sentences failed to adequately distinguish between offenders of very different culpabilities. The article concludes with some lessons for sentencing in these cases, specifically with respect to the Sentencing Council's guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In light of recent government proposals to reform sentencing, this article looks back to reforms introduced to sentencing for murder. Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 created starting points to assist courts in determining the minimum sentence for offenders convicted of murder. The authors argue that the cursory review of the Schedule, and the failure to consider its impact has led to several adverse consequences. First, since the starting points in the Schedule were not the product of a careful proportionality analysis, they do not conform to the requirements of ordinal proportionality. The guidance offered by Sch.21 has compromised rather than promoted proportional sentencing for murder. Second, Sch.21 has also resulted in minimum terms the severity ofwhich cannot be justified on grounds of desert or deterrence. The authors propose some remedial reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2018 the Law Commission published its Sentencing Code, the final product of a project originating in 2015. The aim of the project was to create a single sentencing statute to bring together all of the existing legislation governing sentencing procedure within a single enactment. This commentary recognises the importance of the Commission's initiative and advocates a more ambitious reform based upon the Code. The authors see the Code as constituting a platform for future reforms; the consolidation was a necessary first step towards more principled and consistent sentencing. In this respect, it constitutes a dynamic structure which should facilitate further enhancements to the sentencing process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the history of the suspended sentence order (SSO) that has been available to courts in England and Wales since 1967, and it mentions various SSO developments between 2000 and 2017, as well as information about SSO changes from the British Parliament over the years. Great Britain's Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are assessed, along with criminal law cases such as R. v. Proulx.

Sentencing in England and Wales has evolved in a direction apart from other common law countries. Although sentencing problems found in many Western nations are present, legislative and judicial responses have been very different. The use of custody rose steeply in the 1990s and has remained stable around that level in recent years. Crimes of violence and sexual aggression have, however, attracted increasingly longer sentences. The other principal changes are a steep increase in indeterminate sentence offenders, now accounting for some 19 percent of the prison population, and a striking rise in the volume of suspended sentences that has reduced the use of community sentences rather than terms of imprisonment. Net widening has therefore occurred. The principal distinction between England and most other jurisdictions is that statutorily binding guidelines now exist for both magistrates’ and higher courts. Unlike most US guidelines that assign offenses to levels of seriousness within a single sentencing grid, the English guidelines are offense specific. The Sentencing Council has also issued “generic” guidelines applying to all categories of offending. The guidelines have been evolving for over a decade now and cover most common offenses. Growing, but still limited, research suggests modest positive effects on consistency and proportionality in sentencing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors take a closer look at the current sentencing laws for murder and argue the need to change them. Expanding on the proposals described in the recently published book, Exploring the Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder, the authors provide a more detailed explanation for the new framework. The proposals suggest a new method of sentencing, and discuss how primary and secondary mitigating and aggravating favors can play a role in forming the suggested scheme. This article suggests that this method would constitute a more principled approach compared to mandatory life sentencing, by achieving higher levels of proportionality, greater consistency and restraint in the use of custody. While these proposals focus on the sentencing regime in England and Wales, the authors argue their relevance for other countries that also impose a mandatory life sentence framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crime victims and victims’ advocates have for many years called for greater input into the criminal process, and in particular at the stage of sentencing. Today, victims in almost all common law countries have the opportunity to participate in the sentencing process, usually by providing information about the impact of the crime. This impact evidence is placed before a sentencing court in the form of a victim impact statement (VIS) or victim personal statement (VPS) as it is known in England and Wales. This article reviews findings from the last few years of data from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey (WAVES) which was conducted by the Ministry of Justice. We review findings from the last administrations of the survey. In the most recent administration of the survey (2009–2010), less than half (43%) of victims recalled being offered a statement. Over the most recent three-year period (2007–2010), a comparable percentage (42%) of the victims recalled being offered the opportunity to make a VPS; almost half (45%) explicitly responded that they had not been given an opportunity to make a VPS. In addition, significant variation emerged across local justice areas. The percentage of victims reporting having been offered a VPS varied from a low of 29 per cent in London to a high of 63 per cent in Northumbria – a range of 34 per cent. These and other findings suggest that the VPS scheme is being inconsistently implemented across the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines public attitudes to the sentencing offences associated with the rioting which took place in England in August 2011. Findings are based on a nationally representative survey of adults. The study uses a randomized split-sample experimental design to compare sentencing preferences for actual offences committed during the riots with preferences for similar offences committed under normal circumstances. The riot sub-sample generally ‘sentenced’ more severely than the non-riot sub-sample, but much less severely than the courts. The majority also thought that a non-custodial sentence with a reparative element was an acceptable alternative to custody. These trends suggest an unusual divergence of perspectives between the community and the courts: although the public are generally critical of the courts for leniency, with respect to non-violent offending during the riots, the latter appear more punitive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors comment on an article by Austin Lovegrove about the role of personal mitigation under the sentencing guidelines set by the government of Great Britain. The authors explain some of the important flaws they identified from the analysis of Lovegrove and offer correction to misconceptions about the role of mitigation. They also examine the interpretation of Lovegrove on public attitudes in Wales and England.

Determining the factors which make a difference between a custodial sentence and a community penalty is one of the most challenging decisions for sentencers. Little research to date has explored the nature of public reaction to mitigating factors and the circumstances which may justify imposition of a community penalty even though the custodial threshold has been crossed. This article reports findings from a representative survey of the British public. Respondents were asked a series of questions designed to explore public reaction to sentencing cases at the custodial threshold. Public opinion polls suggest that the public respond punitively at sentencing, and have little sympathy for mitigating factors relating to the offender. In a series of questions, using experimental manipulations, respondents demonstrated considerable flexibility when sentencing cases near the custodial threshold. Significant support emerged for a wide range of mitigating factors at sentencing. The strength of public support for custody as a sanction was also explored by providing respondents who had imposed a term of imprisonment a possible alternative community penalty. Significant proportions of respondents found the alternative acceptable, even for relatively serious offences. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article reports findings from empirical research upon public attitudes to sentencing purposes and sentencing factors. The results demonstrate high levels of support for the use of previous convictions at sentencing. As well, there was significant public support for a range of mitigating factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews public opinion research relating to imprisonment. The focus is upon British attitudes, but wherever possible we place findings from this country in an international context. Most members of the public report little familiarity with the prison system– few people report having had any direct contact with a penal institution. A common finding around the world is that most people believe that prison conditions are quite easy; this belief helps to explain low public levels of confidence in the prison system. Despite these trends, the public does not wish to make prison life harsher merely for the purpose of punishment. People want and expect prisoners to improve their lives while inside, although there is widespread scepticism that rehabilitation is possible in today's prisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores three sanctions contained in the 2002 Criminal Justice Bill which follows upon the 2002 white paper Justice for All. The Bill creates a Sentencing Guidelines Council to develop sentencing guidelines, and defines three dispositions applicable to sentences of imprisonment under twelve months: ‘Custody Plus’, the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the intermittent sentence of imprisonment. These reforms constitute a significant step for the sentencing process in England and Wales, and are in part a response to the 2001 Halliday Report. The changes (among others) may well have an important impact on the prison population in England and Wales, which in October 2002 reached a record level. Since the suspended sentence of imprisonment bears close resemblance to the conditional sentence of imprisonment introduced in Canada in 1996, the article makes comparisons between the two sanctions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opinion polls in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and elsewhere suggest that most members of the public would like their criminal courts to be harsher. Does media coverage of criminal sentencing contribute to a preference for harsher sentencing? Most people derive their information about sentencing from the news media, and content analyses of news stories in Canada and the United States demonstrate that crimes of violence and sentences of imprisonment are overrepresented. Moreover, the news media provide little systematic information about the sentencing process or its underlying principles. This article reports the results of three studies examining the effects of media coverage on public opinion about sentencing. Subjects who read actual newspaper stories about sentencing that appeared in Canadian newspapers rated most reported sentences as too lenient. However, the specific account they read influenced their leniency judgments. Furthermore, in one experiment, participants assigned to read a newspaper account of a sentencing decision supported harsher sentences than participants who read a summary of actual court documents from the sentencing hearing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]