|
The reduction in sentence for a guilty plea changed in July 2007, the full
details are available from the Sentencing Guidelines Council website,
here. |
|
|
-
The court decides sentence for the offence(s)
taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors and any other
offences that have been formally admitted (TICs)
-
The court selects the amount of the
reduction by reference to the sliding scale
-
The court applies the reduction
-
When pronouncing sentence the court should
usually state what the sentence would have been if there had been no
reduction as a result of the guilty plea.
|
|
Reduction for plea of guilty |
A
defendant can get a reduction in his sentence based upon the stage in the
proceedings at which he pleads guilty. The reduction is on a sliding scale
from a one third and in some cases even more.
|
|
|
A defendant who pleads not guilty plea for tactical reasons (such as to
retain privileges whilst on remand), will get very little, if any,
discount.
|
|
Greater reduction for an early plea |
Where the defendant indicates that he wishes to plead guilty he will receive a
discount off his sentence for an early guilty plea.
|
|
"Cracked" trials |
The idea is to encourage guilty defendants to admit their guilt and avoid
the need for a trial. Trials are expensive and time consuming. Sometimes a
defendant will change his plea just before trial or during the trial;
these are known as "cracked trials".
|
|
(R v Wilson,
The Times 12 February 2004) |
The guilty plea has to be made at the first available opportunity, not at
some later stage . |
|
Statute based |
A reduction in sentence for a guilty plea is enshrined in
statute in
Section 144 Criminal Justice Act 2003
|
|
Caught 'red-handed' |
A reduction may be withheld in some cases, for example on the basis of
dangerousness. Where an offender is caught ‘red-handed’ the
reduction will be one fifth. The government had wanted it removed
completely when there is overwhelming evidence.
|
|
Sentencing Guidelines Council
Stages in the proceedings
|
First reasonable opportunity |
|
|
|
|
Door of the court/ after trial has begun |
|
|
1/3 cut in sentence |
|
|
Up to
1/4 cut in sentence |
|
Up to 1/10 cut in sentence |
No reduction |
|
Proportionate reduction |
|
|
Some historical detail |
The practice of reducing sentences after guilty pleas is long established.
(It appeared in section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994 then in section 152 of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000).
Section 152 was re-enacted in almost identical terms in the
Criminal
Justice Act 2003, as
follows:
144
Reduction in sentences for guilty pleas
(1) In determining what sentence to pass on an offender who has pleaded
guilty to an offence in proceedings before that or another court, a court
must take into account—
(a) the stage in the proceedings for the offence at which the offender
indicated his
intention to plead guilty, and
(b) the circumstances in which this indication was given.
(2) In the case of an offence the sentence for which falls to be imposed
under subsection (2) of section 110 or 111 of the Sentencing Act, nothing
in that subsection prevents the court, after taking into account any
matter referred to in subsection (1) of this section, from imposing any
sentence which is not less than 80 per cent of that specified in that
subsection. |
|
June 2006 |
The Lord Chief Justice called together a
strong Court of Appeal of 5 judges to hear an appeal by the Attorney
General against the unduly lenient sentence of a man who raped and
indecently assaulted (and took photographs of the acts) a 12-week-old
baby.
Alan Webster 40 from Hatfield had his minimum jail term increased from six
to eight years. The sentence of his accomplice, Tanya French, remained
the same.
Although Webster is able to apply for parole his depravity was such
that it is possible he will die in jail. Webster raped a baby, police had
photographic evidence of the attack.
The Lord Chief Justice referred to The Sentencing Guidelines Council the
court's misgivings about the discount available when an offender pleads
guilty even though - as in this case - he is caught red-handed.
Similarly, Craig Sweeney, abducted a three-year-old, he also had his life
sentence cut by a third even though he was caught with his victim.
It meant Webster could hope to leave jail
after six years and Sweeney after five.
The Sentencing Guidelines Council is a
quango dominated by judges which has clashed repeatedly with ministers
over sentencing for murder, burglary and other serious crimes. Lord
Phillips suggested last autumn that long jail terms are 'barbaric'.
|
|
July 2007 |
The Sentencing Guidelines Council published
a revised guideline on discount for guilty plea.
Key changes:
(1) Whilst the presumption remains that a reduction should be made for a
guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, the Council has concluded that a
lower reduction of 20 per cent may be appropriate in certain
circumstances. In reaching this decision the Council accepted the advice
of the Sentencing Advisory Panel which consulted widely on the issue.
(2) The Council has also issued additional guidance about when “first
reasonable opportunity” arises. This includes the first time that a
defendant appears before a court and has the opportunity to plead guilty.
The guideline states:
“The court may consider that it would be
reasonable to have expected an indication of willingness even earlier,
perhaps under interview.”
|
|
Reduction of sentence for assisting the
prosecution |
|
R v P & Blackburn (2007) CA
Whole case
here |
Queen's
Evidence; offenders who assist the prosecution can have their
sentences reviewed even after they had been appealed.
[Sentencing - reduction in sentence for
assisting the police]
DD gave assistance to police in separate murder enquiries which resulted
in the conviction of those responsible. The sentences they received had
not taken account of assistance they had given.
Held: Sections 71 to 75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police
Act 2005 created a statutory framework which formalised and developed well
established common law principles, known as “Queen's evidence”.
Unlike the common-law arrangements by which discounts for a guilty plea
ought normally to reflect the time when it was tendered, for the purposes
of a review, any discount should continue to reflect the extent and nature
of the assistance given or offered.
In only the most exceptional case, would the appropriate level of
reduction exceed three quarters of the total sentence which would
otherwise be passed, and the normal level would be a reduction of
somewhere between one half and two thirds of that sentence.
Both defendants were given reduced sentences |
