Judges to look at soft terms for ‘deprived’ offenders
Critics say guidance from Sentencing Council is ‘patronising’ and ‘inaccurate’
JUDGES have been told to consider more lenient sentences for offenders from “deprived” or “difficult” backgrounds.
The Sentencing Council, the official body responsible for setting guidelines for judges and magistrates, has for the first time spelt out “mitigating” factors relating to disadvantage that courts should consider before passing sentence. The guidelines on “difficult and/ or deprived background or personal circumstance” state that these factors include poverty, low educational attainment, experience of discrimination and insecure housing.
The council went ahead with the changes, which took effect on Monday, despite warnings from Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, who said the guidance was “patronising” and “inaccurate”.
During the consultation, concerns were also raised that the new guidelines could lead to better-off offenders from secure homes being “unfairly disadvantaged” by being handed tougher penalties for the same offence. It was also pointed out that many people from deprived backgrounds do not offend.
The Blue Collar Conservatives, a group founded by Esther Mcvey, the minister for common sense, told the council: “We believe this is extremely patronising, not least to law-abiding working-class communities. Often it is actually those who come from the poorest communities who will be the victims of the crimes in these cases. Low educational attainment and poverty are not excuses to commit crimes.”
The Sentencing Council admitted judges and magistrates privately consulted over the plans had been “predominantly negative or neutral”, with many saying they already took such factors into account. However, they decided to proceed with the proposal because they argued spelling out such mitigating factors would ensure they were applied in a “consistent and appropriate” way and improve “transparency and fairness”.
As a result, judges and magistrates have been told they should consider 12 factors of “disadvantage” in determining an offenders’ responsibility for a crime, how the factors bear on criminals’ behaviour and the effect of any sentence that might be imposed on them. The factors include negative experiences of authority, early experience of offending by family members, negative influences from peers and difficulties relating to the misuse of drugs and alcohol. This excludes being voluntarily drunk at the time of an offence, which is an “aggravating factor” in sentencing.
In his response to the consultation, seen by The Telegraph, Mr Chalk said: “The Government is clear that many of the examples of difficulty or deprivation that have been set out in the consultation... ought not to be relied upon as excuses to commit crimes.
“Presupposing that relatively low income for example (or indeed other deprivation) indicates a propensity to commit crime risks appearing patronis- ing at best, or inaccurate at worst.”
Asked why it went ahead with the changes, a Sentencing Council spokesman said the guidance was phrased to strike a balance by drawing courts’ attention to “potentially relevant considerations” without being over prescriptive.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Sentencing decisions are made by judges who already take into account the circumstances of each case in line with guidelines set out by the Sentencing Council.”