The Justice Committee welcomes the Sentencing Council’s
consultation on expanded explanations in sentencing guidelines
and makes a number of observations in a new report published
today.
In February, the Sentencing Council published for consultation a
proposal to embed additional information into offence-specific
sentencing guidelines to make it easier for users to access
relevant information.
The Committee is a statutory consultee on draft guidelines and
the Council shared with MPs the consultation responses it had
received. In today’s report, the Committee publishes its
submission - a letter from the Chair to the Chairman of the
Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Holroyde - and the reply.
Chair of the Justice Committee, MP, said:
“As always, I am grateful to the Sentencing Council for their
flexibility in allowing us to respond to this consultation and
the principle behind this project appears to have widespread
support.
“These explanations are both comprehensive and accessible
when it comes to fines and community/ custodial sentences as well
as aggravating and mitigating factors.
“Given that we have previously warned about the risk of
double counting of overlapping or similar factors, we feel that
including the reminder to sentencers at the beginning of every
expanded explanation is a sensible step.
“We also make a number of observations in relation to
specific aspects of the draft expanded explanations.”
The Committee’s observations:
-
The five purposes of sentencing: The
Committee welcomes the inclusion of additional material on
fines, community orders and custodial sentences to complement
the information provided in the Guideline on imposition of
community and custodial sentences but thinks it would help
sentencers if the five purposes of sentencing were re-stated.
-
Guidance on pre-sentence
reports: The Committee raises
concern that there may be pressure to produce these (which help
courts decide between, say, jail and community service) too
quickly, at the expense of detailed information on
offenders. The Committee suggests the text emphasise the
value of standard pre-sentence reports for particular types of
case, even if it means an adjournment, and therefore delay, in
sentencing.
-
Commission of offence whilst under the influence of
alcohol of drugs: The Committee thinks
it would be helpful if the explanatory text were reworded to
acknowledge that an offender may genuinely intend to seek help
but be thwarted by limitations in the availability of local
treatment facilities.
-
Offence involved use or threat of use of a
weapon: The text of the expanded explanation for
this aggravating factor does not describe or define what is
meant by “a weapon”. The Committee suggests the Council
consider whether it is possible to provide a non-exhaustive
list of items that appellate courts have held to be weapons.
-
Good character and/or exemplary
conduct: The expanded explanation for this
mitigating factor states that an offender may be given a
reduced sentence if they can demonstrate positive good
character through, for example, charitable works—although where
an offender has used their good character or status to
facilitate or conceal the offending it could be treated as an
aggravating factor. The Committee notes that the Overarching
principles—Domestic abuse: Definitive guideline is more explicit
in recognising that one of the factors that can allow domestic
abuse to continue unnoticed is the ability of the perpetrator to
have a public and a private face, and that where offences are
committed within a domestic context and there is a proven pattern
of behaviour, an offender’s good character should generally be of
no relevance. Given the potential for confusion, the Committee
considers it would be helpful for the expanded explanation to
make a cross reference to the Domestic abuse guideline, perhaps
by way of a link.
-
Age and/or lack of maturity: The
explanations acknowledge that age, maturity and related factors
can affect and individual’s responsibility for an offence and
the effect on them of particular sentences. The Committee would
like immaturity because of atypical brain development to be
taken into account, too.