| This report describes the Home Affairs Committee's new role in scrutinising draft sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC). It sets out the background to the new system of guidelines and outlines how we intend to make public our comments on each draft guideline. We also conclude that there are circumstances in which wider debate within Parliament may be desirable on particular guidelines.
We then discuss the first two draft guidelines to be published.
On Draft Guideline 1: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea, we note the rationale behind the long-established practice of the courts of reducing sentences after guilty pleas: that is, that guilty pleas save the time and expense of contested trials, and also save victims and witnesses from the stressful prospect of having to give evidence. We broadly welcome the draft guidelines as providing a useful clarification of the law.
We comment on several specific issues. We express regret at the omission of a race impact question, and query as ambiguous the wording of the section on 'red handed' offenders.
We focus in detail on the application of the draft guideline to the offence of murder. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 carries forward previous provisions in relation to reduction for a guilty plea, and explicitly states that these apply to the new arrangements for murder tariffs.
We note the Home Secretary's comments that this reduction was intended to apply only in "genuinely exceptional circumstances" in cases of murder, but we can find no mention in the Act (or in parliamentary debate during the passage of the Act) of any such limitation of the normal sentence reductions.
We express doubt as to whether, at the time of the passage of the 2003 Act, either the Home Secretary or the House at large realised the full implications of the paragraph in the relevant Schedule which applied guilty plea reductions to murder tariffs. This situation almost certainly arose because the provisions relating to murder tariffs were introduced at report stage in the Commons, which precluded effective parliamentary scrutiny either by select or standing committee. We hope that the lesson will be learnt by the Home Office and the House that it is highly undesirable for major criminal justice provisions to be put before Parliament at a late stage in proceedings on a Bill.
We believe that the SGC acted in a reasonable manner when it included murder as well as other offences within the ambit of the draft guideline. Nonetheless, we believe that the draft in its present form does not fully reflect the wishes of Parliament indicated by the enactment of the special provisions for murder in the 2003 Act. Nor does it fully reflect public disquiet about the extent to which reductions for a guilty plea, especially when applied in addition to reductions for other 'mitigating circumstances', may reduce sentences for murder significantly below the 'starting points' set out in the Act.
We criticise media coverage which suggested that reductions in murder tariffs would be widespread under the new guidelines. This was irresponsible and misleading.
We consider whether the draft guideline might be amended to indicate a 20% limit in sentence reduction in murder cases, but reject this option.
We suggest two ways forward:
- in the medium term, legislation by Parliament to remove ambiguity by making express provision for some restriction, in respect of murder, of the normal sentence reductions for guilty plea.
- In the short term, that the Sentencing Guidelines Council should consider possible amendment to the draft guideline to reflect Parliament's wish that murder should be treated as a separate and especially grave category of offence.
On Draft Guideline 2: Overarching principles: seriousness and New sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003, we welcome the reaffirmation of the five core principles which will underlie sentencing: punishment, reduction of crime, rehabilitation and reform, public protection, and reparation.
We call for being "under the influence of drugs or alcohol" to be added to the draft guideline's list of aggravating factors to be taken into account when sentencers assess the level of culpability of an offender.
We agree that there may be "exceptional local circumstances" that may lead to a local prevalence of offences influencing local sentencing for a time. However, any use of higher levels of sentencing locally should be founded on objective evidence of prevalence. The SGC should consider mechanisms for keeping any such sentencing under review to prevent an unintended knock-on effect on sentencing generally. We also call on the Lord Chief Justice to play a role where necessary in indicating when the increasing frequency of particular crimes across a wide area of the country might justify a consistent approach to higher levels of sentencing.
We welcome the principles underlying the new community sentences and look forward to observing their deployment in practice. We note that one option open to sentencers is to fine offenders. Use of fines has declined steeply in recent years; we call for this decline to be reversed.
On persistent offending, we recommend that the draft guideline be amended to make clear that sentences—within the overall requirement for proportionality—should reflect the need strongly to discourage repeated law-breaking.
We recommend that the draft guideline should place more emphasis on the necessity for sentencers to bear in mind the need to maintain public confidence when they deal with breaches of requirements imposed by a sentence.
We support the draft guideline's general approach to custodial sentences of more than 12 months, though developing practice will need to be closely monitored. We call on the Government to take the necessary steps to secure adequate funding for the Probation Service to enable it to implement the new arrangements effectively.
We will monitor the introduction of the new deferred sentences, suspended sentences and intermittent custody. We are particularly keen to see the development of intermittent custody pilots for women prisoners.
| 
