Controversial shake-up of sentencing guidelines
The first draft sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Advisory Panel have been published today to perhaps inevitable controversy.
In particular, critics have been riled by the guidelines that those who plead guilty could receive a reduction in their sentence.
The panel argues that an early plea of guilty has a number of benefits for the system, including avoiding trial and saving victims and witnessed from the “distress of having to give evidence and saves considerable cost.”
Under the proposals, an early plea could see sentences being reduced by a third, a guilty plea after the trial date is set could see a quarter reduction, and one tenth after the trial begins.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis chose to focus on the possibility that murderers could have their prison terms cut, demanding: “What kind of message will this send”?
“Parliament should set the sentencing guidelines. David Blunkett cannot claim to be tough on crime if he will allow murderers to walk free after just seven years. With over 800 murders a year, up by a sixth in only five years, this reinforces the need for punishments that deter killers.”
The Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is an independent body, is required by law to consult with Parliament and the Home Secretary before the guidelines become final and are circulated to the courts. It has already consulted widely within the legal profession and other interested organisations before drawing up these guidelines.
It is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, and has membership drawn from the judiciary, police, criminal justice system and those working with victims of crime.
Its stated hope is that the guidance will allow those responsible for sentencing to “confidently, fairly and consistently with all offenders”.
Another key recommendation deals with “seriousness”. The assessment of the severity of the crime is described as “crucial” in underpinning the sentencing decision. Sentencers are called upon to “not only consider the level of harm caused or risked by an offence but must also assess the level of criminal culpability of the offender.”
Strong sentences for those guilty of violent or sexual offences are stressed, with a beefed up emphasis on effective community sentences.
