24. Aug. 2010. – 16:12:51
It is not all that often that the Magistrates` Association`s house magazine “Magistrate” has an article that offers information on an important topic about which I am totally ignorant and as memory serves me has never ever been alluded to in a training session or at any time by a legal adviser when I have been involved in a sentencing bench.
Such was a colleague`s article entitled “Looking closely at custody” in the current issue. Before continuing it is helpful to know that the sentencing structures at courts were formulated under the Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2004 in order to achieve a certain logical approach to sentencing and to avoid the appearance of “post code sentencing”. That effort has not, in my opinion, been unsuccessful. This organisation in the spirit of the tendency for governments to think up new names for similar structures is now The Sentencing Council.
Returning to the subject, all sentencers must justify their sentences in open court and explain why custodial sentences especially are the only possible disposal in such cases. It is by such hurdle jumping that relatively few custodial sentences are made at Magistrates` Courts. However the article in question referred to a document published 16/12/2004 by the Sentencing Guidelines Council…..”Overarching Principles: Seriousness”. I had never known of this until opening the magazine. Its content had never ever been mentioned by name in my presence by anybody at any time although the principles are familiar. The important conclusion is that even when all the hurdles have been taken and custody appears to be the only option there should be a final discussion as to whether even a suspended custodial sentence can be avoided even although by a structured approach there is no other sentence but immediate custody which can be justified. Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable and custody can still be avoided in the light of personal mitigation or where there is a suitable intervention in the community which provides sufficient restriction (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime. For example, a prolific offender who currently could expect a short custodial sentence (which, in advance of custody plus, would have no provision for supervision on release) might more appropriately receive a suitable community sentence.
The SGC as mentioned above has been superseded by the Sentencing Council. In the light of current political pressures I am surprised that this document has not been brought to the attention of magistrates; at least not this one nor his bench
Such was a colleague`s article entitled “Looking closely at custody” in the current issue. Before continuing it is helpful to know that the sentencing structures at courts were formulated under the Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2004 in order to achieve a certain logical approach to sentencing and to avoid the appearance of “post code sentencing”. That effort has not, in my opinion, been unsuccessful. This organisation in the spirit of the tendency for governments to think up new names for similar structures is now The Sentencing Council.
Returning to the subject, all sentencers must justify their sentences in open court and explain why custodial sentences especially are the only possible disposal in such cases. It is by such hurdle jumping that relatively few custodial sentences are made at Magistrates` Courts. However the article in question referred to a document published 16/12/2004 by the Sentencing Guidelines Council…..”Overarching Principles: Seriousness”. I had never known of this until opening the magazine. Its content had never ever been mentioned by name in my presence by anybody at any time although the principles are familiar. The important conclusion is that even when all the hurdles have been taken and custody appears to be the only option there should be a final discussion as to whether even a suspended custodial sentence can be avoided even although by a structured approach there is no other sentence but immediate custody which can be justified. Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable and custody can still be avoided in the light of personal mitigation or where there is a suitable intervention in the community which provides sufficient restriction (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime. For example, a prolific offender who currently could expect a short custodial sentence (which, in advance of custody plus, would have no provision for supervision on release) might more appropriately receive a suitable community sentence.
The SGC as mentioned above has been superseded by the Sentencing Council. In the light of current political pressures I am surprised that this document has not been brought to the attention of magistrates; at least not this one nor his bench
No comments:
Post a Comment