More victims will soon be able to request an increase in an offender`s sentence if they feel the sentence is too lenient. But our incarceration rates are actually among the highest in Western Europe, with one of the highest proportions of prisoners serving life sentences. So in a certain statistical sense, we`re not really forgiving right now. The Attorney General must personally review the matter and decide whether a particular sentence is unreasonably lenient under paragraph 36(1)(a). This condition may be fulfilled if the judge has erred in law with regard to his criminal powers (Article 36(2)) insofar as the resulting penalty is excessively lenient. The Attorney General must exercise his discretion with respect to the individual case. There may be cases where the CPS does not consider the sentence to be excessively lenient, but it is necessary to prepare a referral for a decision of the Attorney General. This legal opinion relates to the referral to the Attorney General of sentences considered excessively lenient under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Unless otherwise specified, the guidelines in the articles, paragraphs or lists refer to the 1988 Act. The money needed, he said, was “little more than a rounding error in [the budgets of] many departments.” If withholding funds in court prevents people from returning to normal lives and working, he added, it is “a false economy.” More than three-quarters of the population consider sanctions in England and Wales to be too lenient (76%).
According to a survey conducted as part of the Prison Reform Trust`s recent Bromley Briefing Prison Factfile, three-quarters of respondents (75%) also believe prison sentences have been shortened since 1996, despite punitive inflation. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir Ian Burnett, has also called for increased funding. “There must be sufficient resources to allow the courts to operate at full capacity. Otherwise, the backlog [of cases] will be unsustainable,” he told the Bar Council. In cases involving multiple hands, this information should be available to all offenders, not just those offenders for whom the CPS considers the sentence to be unreasonably lenient. Law enforcement agencies must consider all judgments against each other and with respect to relevant policies or authorities. Each PAC is required by the Director to be personally responsible for ensuring that all unreasonably lenient criminal claims (ULS) submitted by its sector are of the highest quality and are filed in a timely manner. I can`t find this research now, I`ll try a little harder to dig it up later. But when the public was consulted and received all the information about some redacted cases, they actually thought that shorter sentences were appropriate than those imposed by the courts. Sentencing guidelines are intended to cover the vast majority of cases brought before the courts, so it will be very rare that a guideline does not propose an appropriate sentence for a crime. While convicted persons are normally required to follow guidelines, if they consider that the range of penalties proposed in the Directive does not reflect the seriousness of a crime, they may sentence beyond this area to the fullest extent permitted by law.
An alien visiting Earth and reading our newspapers and online media would wonder why convicted criminals are sentenced more lenient than in the past. There is a difficulty with this narrative. This is a myth. A new YouGov poll shows that Britons believe convicted criminals should be punished more severely by the courts – with support for harsher sentences highest among Conservative voters and older Britons. Unfortunately, it looks like they have closed it now, but the original images can be found here. More than 80% of people who closed a case imposed a lighter or identical sentence to the actual case! If the judge indicated a sentence under R. v. Goodyear, the prosecutor`s attorney or the HCA should have reminded the judge that this did not affect the Attorney General`s power to designate a sentence as unreasonably lenient. In any event, counsel for the prosecutor should not have said anything that would have given the impression that the criminal complaint had the support or approval of the Crown. See Attorney General`s Guidelines on the Acceptance of Plasters and the Role of the Prosecutor in the Sentencing Exercise and R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888.
The court considered the principle in the key case of Attorney General`s 2006 Reference Nos. 14 and 15 (Webster and French) – link here. The Court has held that double jeopardy is only one aspect of the Court`s role in considering whether and how to intervene when an excessively lenient sentence has been imposed; If an author was not responsible for undue clemency, justice required that the distress and fear experienced by the perpetrator be taken into account to some extent (to what extent is it specific to the facts); These are likely to be particularly important if a custodial sentence has been imposed instead of a custodial sentence, if a custodial sentence has been served, if the offender was young and immature, or if he or she was about to be released, and in such cases discounts for double prosecution should tend to be at the upper end of the range (usually around 30 per cent). The fears and anxieties are much less important if there was still a longer prison sentence to serve, and in such cases double jeopardy was limited and, in some cases, could not be properly accommodated (this is a matter of discretion). If you read a media report on a particular case, it may seem that the sentence is too lenient or too harsh. This can sometimes be due to the fact that the report does not cover all the facts of the case and the media tends to report the most extreme cases. Judges usually prepare verdict statements explaining why they imposed a particular judgment. Convictions for some high-profile cases can be found on the judicial website. Sometimes, of course, judges get it wrong. We act in public and justify our decisions. Everyone is free to disagree and can do so by explaining why. I welcome a stimulating exchange on whether sentences should be harsher or more lenient, whether in general or for specific offences or types of offenders, but not an instinctive criticism by a judge of the application of the law and directives, which have the effect of nothing more than the harmful erosion of confidence in the administration of justice.
Our latest data shows that two-thirds of Britons (65%) believe that the sentences imposed by the courts on those convicted of crimes are not harsh enough. Only 12% think the courts will find the right balance, while 2% say the sentences are too harsh and 21% are uncertain. In addition, the average minimum sentence that a person convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment must serve before the Parole Board can consider a licence has increased from 12.5 years in 2003 to 21.3 years in 2016. Whether you agree with or oppose this trend is the reality, and the responsibility lies not only with the courts but also with Parliament, as you can see when you look at how the system works.