Written evidence submitted by the Ministry
of Justice
DRAFT SENTENCING
GUIDELINE ON
ASSAULT
As you know the Council is required to consult myself
as Lord Chancellor about its draft guidelines and I will be responding
to the Council with the Government's comments on the draft guideline
on assault later this month.
The Committee has asked five specific questions and
my response to these is below:
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing
guideline?
I can add nothing to the Council's view on this.
The Council has set out in its consultation documents the difficulties
sentencers have reported with the existing guideline. They find
the prescribed scenarios which define levels within each offence
difficult to relate to some cases and find that the existing guideline
places undue emphasis on premeditation.
Is the simpler structure for the guidelines designed
to make them more accessible to the public appropriate?
We certainly want guidelines to be more accessible
and transparent both so that those involved in cases—victims,
witnesses, offenders, lawyers and prosecutors—can have a
reasonably good idea of what sentence is likely to be given, and
to promote confidence in sentencing through greater awareness.
The responses from members of the public will show whether the
structure is more accessible to them.
Is the movement from an offender-based to an offence-based
starting point helpful?
On starting points we are certain that in order to
support consistency there must be starting points in each category
range. The new offence-based starting point proposed would seem
to be workable. It is certainly an option on which sentencers
and others' views should be taken by the Council through its consultation.
Does the guideline strike the right balance between
harm and culpability?
Again, this is a question on which the Council will
need to listen to the views of sentencers. The draft guideline
on assault gives harm and culpability equal value in determining
the offence category. Once category has been determined it appears
that it is factors which relate more to variation in culpability
than in harm that determine whether the sentence should be higher
or lower than the starting point. We feel that the Council's focus
on culpability in the aggravating factors within categories may
be appropriate for this guideline because the assault offences
to which the guideline relates are themselves defined in large
part by differing levels of harm.
What is the likely impact of the guidelines on
victims and the reduction of re-offending?
We hope that victims and victims groups will consider
that their concerns are taken into account quite well in the guideline.
We think it would be helpful however if the definitive guideline
could refer to the Victim Personal Statement as a potential source
of information either on the victim's vulnerability or on whether
significant harm over and above the average was caused to the
victim.
The Council has not given a view as to the potential
impact of the changes in sentencing on re-offending either in
the consultation document or in the resource assessment published
with the draft guideline. Assessing the effect of changes in sentencing
on re-offending is far from straightforward and depends upon the
effectiveness of different disposals and offender characteristics.
December 2010
| 
