|
Discharges |
|
There are two discharges, absolute and
conditional |
Where a court records an absolute discharged there is
no penalty imposed and the court is effectively saying that there was a
breach of the law but it was not deserving of any penalty.
|
|
December 2005 |
Maya Anne Evans, 25, a vegan cook from
Hastings, was found guilty of breaching
Section 132 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.
She was
arrested in October after reading out names of soldiers killed in
Iraq at central
London's Cenotaph.
Bow Street magistrates gave her a
conditional discharge.
A conditional discharge means that the court
discharges the offender on the condition that no further offence is
committed within a period of up to three years.
If the offender re-offends within the time limit, the
court can then impose another sentence in place of the conditional
discharge as well as imposing a penalty for the new offence.
In both cases the defendant can be required to pay
costs.
|
|
R v Thomas (2003) CA |
D was made the subject of an ASBO, by which time he
had amassed a staggering total of 451 offences, including 263 for theft.
The order prohibited the defendant from entering four stores but he
breached it within weeks and received a prison sentence of five months.
Only eight days after his release from that sentence he committed a
further breach. This time the court imposed a term of 18 months.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence. |
|
Deferred Sentences |
|
Deferred Sentences |
The CJA creates new provisions to strengthen
deferment of sentence the rules for which are to be found in
section 1 PCCS 2000.
A deferred sentence allows the court to appoint an
officer of the Probation Board or any other person it considers suitable
to monitor the offender during the period of deferment.
A court may defer passing sentence to have regard to
the defendant’s conduct after conviction or any change in his
circumstances. The court can defer passing sentence for of up to six
months after conviction. A deferred sentence can only be exercised with
consent of offender.
Deferred sentences are typically used when the
offender’s circumstances are expected to change, with the possibility that
no punishment or a lesser one will be necessary.
|
|
Cautions |
|
Conditional Cautions
|
The CJA provides for conditional cautions
for those over 18.
The conditions
available with a caution are aimed at reparation for the offence and
rehabilitation of the offender.
The statutory framework of “conditional
cautions”, which may be given by the police or Crown Prosecution
Service when the five conditions in section 23 are fulfilled (these
include admitting the offence and there being sufficient evidence to
charge). (Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act,
sections 22–27).
|
|
Which offence? Which condition |
-
Criminal damage offences accounted
for half of all cases for which a conditional caution was administered.
Other common offence types were theft and handling, and drug offences.
-
Compensation was the most
frequently used condition.
70% were completed successfully.
24% agreed to the conditional caution, but failed to carry it out.
Figures and details for the implementation period are
here.
|
|
Evaluation of conditional cautioning |
Practitioners identified three main benefits of conditional cautions:
-
addressing the causes of crime,
-
increasing victim satisfaction, and
-
contributing to efficiency savings in the
courts.
Barriers to the effective implementation of the scheme included
-
a lack of understanding about the types of
cases that should be targeted by a conditional caution and
-
a perception among some practitioners that
additional resources are required for conditional cautioning.
|
|
Jones v Whalley (2006) HL
Whole case
here
|
^[The effect of a caution]
The assailant accepted a formal caution for an offence of assault
occasioning actual bodily harm against the claimant, on the understanding
that, if he accepted it, he would not face prosecution in respect of the
offence. The claimant attempted to bring his own private prosecution
against the assailant.
Held: The House of Lords held that to do so was an abuse of
process.
|
