Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
recommend that aggravating and mitigating factors should be set
out separately for adults and young offenders, so as to recognise
the different philosophy and statutory purpose of the youth justice
system, add clarity to the guideline (which already provides for
different sentencing ranges), and allow for the varying significance
of these factors for different ages. (Paragraph 23)
2. We also recommend
that there should be more specific guidance on the proportionate
(and appropriate) sentencing of younger offenders, given that
the sentencing range is based on a 17-year-old pleading not guilty.
However, such guidance should not start from the assumption that
the appropriate response to immaturity or challenging family backgrounds
is necessarily a discounted length of sentence. Rather guidance
should aim to ensure that the sentence contains all the elements
necessary to ensure the successful rehabilitation of the offender.
(Paragraph 24)
3. For the sake of
clarity, and because of their common use, we recommend that explicit
mention of referral orders be made on the face of the guideline.
(Paragraph 25)
4. We see no reason
why the 'plea before venue' provisions should not be brought into
force with immediate effect, and recommend that the Government
should take the necessary steps to do so. (Paragraph 26)
5. We recommend that
the guideline should explicitly address the jurisdictional boundary
between youth courts and the Crown Court in relation to each sentencing
range for young offenders. (Paragraph 27)
6. We urge sentencers,
in cases where non-custodial sentences can be justified, to impose
more community orders with drug rehabilitation requirements where
the evidence indicates that drug treatment would make a significant
difference to offending behaviour. (Paragraph 28)
7. We recommend that
the draft guideline should be amended to provide that, in less
serious cases and where fear or risk is successfully reduced by
restorative measures, and reparation made with the agreement of
the victim, this should be a mitigating factor. (Paragraph 29)
8. We further believe
that in appropriate cases sentence might be deferred for restorative
processes to take place, to promote the interests of victims and
the prevention of re-offending. We recommend that the Council
should consider adding to the guideline specific mention of such
an option—which should also make clear that custodial sentences
may well result in any event. If restorative measures have previously
been used this may not be a suitable course of action. (Paragraph
30)
9. We recommend that
there should be an additional aggravating factor of premeditation
shown by pre-arming. We believe courts are well able to identify
where this is deliberate. (Paragraph 31)
10. We support our
predecessors' call for a major rethink of policy, and redirection
of resources, towards effective rehabilitative work in prisons.
We also recommend that the draft guideline on robbery should require
sentencers, when they explain their reasons as to why a particular
custodial sentence has been imposed, to make an explicit statement
as to the levels of education and drug treatment that they expect
to be provided within prison as a necessary part of that sentence.
(Paragraph 33)
11. We recommend that
the Council should commission research into the deterrent effects
both of exemplary sentencing and of the new sentences for dangerous
offenders. (Paragraph 35)
| 
