The website of the judges, magistrates and tribunal members in England and Wales

The Lord Chief Justice now decides where judges sit, and the type of cases they hear

25 March 2009

Statement By The Council of HM Circuit Judges

Coroners and Justice Bill

1. We represent the 652 Circuit Judges in England and Wales most of whom preside over trials and sentencing procedures in the Crown Court.  Circuit Judges try and sentence the vast majority of cases passing through the Crown Court.  Circuit Judges have considerable experience in matters of sentencing and our views are drawn from a position of practical experience. We are concerned at the impact on sentencing of what is clearly a sentencing matrix proposed in the Coroners and Justice Bill even taking account of the Government amendments.
2. In December 2007 a Working Group was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Gage to consider the feasibility and desirability of establishing a Sentencing Commission in England and Wales.  The “model” that the Gage Working Group was encouraged to consider was a mandatory sentencing framework within which sentence was to be passed in all cases by the use of a sentencing grid. The Gage Working Group canvassed a wide range of views and after a consultation process firmly rejected this concept finding it to be “unsuitable and unacceptable in England and Wales”.  The Gage Working Group did not recommend the introduction of mandatory Guidelines restricting the discretion of sentencing Judges to impose the right and just sentence in individual cases.
3. The Coroners and Justice Bill, even with the amendments proposed by the Government, does not reflect the recommendations of the Gage Working Group. The Bill seeks to create a sentencing matrix with Judges required to identify whether individual cases fall within restricted categories within each offence in the matrix. Sentencing decisions are then linked to those arbitrary categories. The Bill seeks to remove the discretion of the sentencing guidelines body by requiring it to structure guidelines in a rigid way.  The discretion of the sentencing Judge is thereby severely limited by the introduction of what are mandatory Guidelines which the Court must follow or apply in reaching the sentencing decision.
4. We do not believe that the introduction of mandatory Guidelines will facilitate the just and proper sentencing of offenders. We consider that the imposition of mandatory Guidelines may result in injustice to both offenders and victims in individual cases. For example the position of some female offenders, young offenders and those in minority or disabled groups may be prejudiced. We are, therefore, firmly opposed to the introduction of a sentencing matrix and mandatory Guidelines as set out in the Bill and amendments
5. The stated intention of these proposals is to facilitate prediction of the number of custodial sentences. We do not believe that this legislation will achieve that purpose when the sentencing process alone is not the sole driver and comprehensive statistics for prediction are currently available.
6. We do not consider these sentencing proposals to have any benefit. The proposals are not sought by the judiciary or any other criminal justice group. They are unnecessary, costly and unwelcome.