Skip to main content

Defendant’s told to plead guilty in return for reduced sentences

Man with back turned to camera wearing a hi-vis Community Payback tabard
New guilty plea reduction guidelines consulted upon


Today the media are reporting on a consultation by the Sentencing Guidelines Council to reduce the sentences of defendants who agree to plead guilty.  The Guardian says, “[d]raft guidelines say for maximum reduction, defendants must plead guilty at first opportunity in court, with cuts dropping thereafter until trial”.

This news will come as a shock to most criminal solicitors and barristers given that in 2003 Parliament passed the Criminal Justice Act, section 144 of which requires courts to take into account the guilty plea, when it was entered and the circumstances of the plea.  The provision in the CJA 2003 wasn’t even particularly new when it was passed.  Criminal solicitors and barristers will also be aware of the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s “Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea – Definitive Guideline” document, which was last revised in 2007 and gives all sorts of guidance on reducing a sentence to reflect a guilty plea.

The changes proposed by the Council amount to little more than tinkering around the edges and are not a wholesale reform that you might expect from some of the media’s reporting.

Currently, a typical defendant who pleads guilty can expect a reduction in his or her sentence depending on the stage at which the case has reached.  The Definitive Guideline even contains this helpful diagram:

Extract from Definitive Guideline on sentence reductions 2007

You’ll remember that the Guardian told us that under the new proposals defendants will have to plead guilty at the first opportunity to get the maximum reduction and that reductions will drop thereafter?  As you can see from the diagram above that is a pretty accurate reflection of the situation as it stands right now.

Today, the judge may reduce the discount if it is felt there is a good reason to do so.  One such reason might be because the prosecution case is overwhelming and the defendant has no real choice but to admit his crime.

In practice, courts rarely cut the level of the reduction – bearing in mind that I specialise in defending drink driving cases and the prosecution case is often overwhelming, I have never had a court cut a sentence reduction.  Even before I began specialising in drink driving cases, I never had a court reduce the discount even where the offence was serious.

The Council’s main proposal seems to be to do away with the judge’s discretion to reduce the level of discount.  This would mean that if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity he will receive the full discount no matter what.  This will mean that where a defendant pleads not guilty and changes his plea he will no longer be able to ask the judge to give him the full discount anyway.  There are often good reasons for not pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity; not least that the prosecution almost never bother to serve any evidence until a defendant pleads not guilty.  This makes it impossible for the defence to decide whether the Crown can prove their case and as we have an adversarial system that is the all-important question.

Another proposal by the Council is to remove any credit for a plea after the trial has begun.  This may seem sensible, but some trials can last months and if there is no incentive for a defendant to stop a trial that is clearly going against him he may be inclined to waste more court time by carrying on with it.

For the vast majority of cases heard in England and Wales these changes will make little if any difference.  But, there is an important point here.  When the sentencing guidelines were first introduced sentencing in courts became more rigid over night as courts began following the guidelines as if they were gospel law rather than just guidelines.  The higher courts were even called to rule that the guidelines are just guidelines and should not be followed slavishly.  Even today, getting magistrates to go outside a sentencing bracket in a drink driving case is an uphill struggle.  What we see here is another chip away at the power and discretion of the judiciary to decide cases justly. 

If adopted, will these proposals result in more guilty people pleading guilty earlier or simply less people changing their plea after the first hearing?  Experience tells me that very few clients are desperately concerned about the sentencing discount when there is a chance they might be found not guilty.

Comments

  1. Unfortunately there are a lot of innocent people in prison due to really bad representation who told the client to plead guilty even when there was no case against them and because they were first time offenders and didn't know how the system works did as they were told. The system only works for those who are habitual users of it and know how to play it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i am one of these clients, i was not guilty from the start as i did not commit the crime, but as soon as i was placed on remand i panicked and was offered a get out of jail card. i took it. nw my life is over. even though ALL the evidence proves i am not guilty i will have to suffer this forever. i wish i could appeal but given it was a guilty plea apparently this is impossible

      Delete
  2. Wasn't the law changed so that "guidelines" have to be followed unless there is very good reason not to? They have mostly become "tramlines" and Magistrates' legal advisers will advise their benches to adhere to them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well now, it would be really nice if councils would actually follow government statutory guidance on their operation of parking enforcement !

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…