Move to end sentencing confusion

Never mind cigarettes and booze - the government should apply a health warning to sentencing.

The process is so complicated that trying to work out how a sentence has been arrived at is likely to leave with you a severe headache.

First there is legislation - setting out maximum sentences for each offence, and in some cases, minimum sentences too.

There are previous cases - case law - which courts must have regard to.

Then there is the Sentencing Guidelines Council's advice on the appropriate sentences for particular crimes.

When all that has been considered, the judge must take into account mitigating factors - such as remorse or youth; aggravating features - such as whether threats or violence are used; and previous convictions.

Reports may have been prepared by probation staff or doctors about an offender's background and medical problems - these cannot be ignored either.

Courts are also required to pay heed to the impact on victims, through victim impact statements and, in some cases, direct representation by a victim's advocate.

But when a prison sentence is in the offing, there may be a reduction if the offender pleads guilty early.

And if the offender has already served time in jail, on remand, that will have to be deducted from the sentence as well.

Options

Confused? The government believes the public is, which is why it wants to clarify the process.

One option is to state precisely how much time an offender will serve in prison, and how much on licence in the community.

So, goodbye to the "four-year prison sentence" - in which an offender really spends only half the time behind bars.

And hello to the "two years in prison plus two years on licence in the community" sentence - a more accurate reflection of what it means, but less concise.

'Hamstrung' judges

Another possibility - where a sentence is open-ended and a minimum term is set - is to say clearly what the minimum and maximum terms are.

For instance, an offender given an indeterminate sentence with a 10-year minimum term would be told that they would spend "between ten years and life in prison".

The Home Office's other aim is to minimise the risk to the public posed by dangerous offenders by giving judges greater powers to impose tougher sentences.

At present - as we've seen - judges are hamstrung by rules and regulations.

But the only way the Home Office can envisage giving judges more discretion would involve a series of new rules and regulations.

One of the options suggests that a further risk assessment be carried out before a minimum term is set; another option proposes "additional years" to reflect "public confidence issues"; while a third possibility - in fixed sentence cases - is that a High Court judge would be able to send a case to the Parole Board if an offender's early release might pose a risk to the public.

Confused? Devising a clearer sentencing structure and beefing up sentences for dangerous offenders may be worthy objectives.

But the government will have its work cut out achieving both at the same time.