Revised Sentencing Guideline: Assault - Justice Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 26 January 2011