Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentnecing Advisory ...webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100519200657/http:/www... · Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel

Annual ReportSentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel

2009/2010

Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 173(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Published on 11 March 2010

Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel 1

ContentsForewordsChairman of the Sentencing Guidelines Council 2Chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel 3

Section 1The story of the Panel and Council Ten years of the Sentencing Advisory Panel 5Six years of the Sentencing Guidelines Council 10Summary of publications 14

Definitive guidelines 14Advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel 15Research reports 16The Sentence 17Guideline Judgments – Case Compendium 17Annual reports 17

Section 2Business report: April 2009 to February 2010 Summary of key achievements 18Guideline development process 19Completed projects 19 Partially completed projects 21 Other projects 23Communications 24

Section 3Membership details of the Council and Panel 26History of membership 27

Section 4Secretariat activity and support

Work and events 29Budget/financial details 30

Annexes 32

Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel2 Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel 3Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel2 3

ForewordChairman of the Sentencing Guidelines Council

It has been fascinating to be involved in the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, first as a member, as Deputy Chairman and then as Chairman when I took over from my predecessor the Rt. Hon. Lord Phillips in 2008. The Council has brought together members from different and diverse backgrounds with a common interest in criminal justice. Its strength has been the ability of its members to digest large amounts of material and to use their experience to bring their respective views to debates which have centred on issues of principle and the practical operation of sentencing guidelines. The debates have been characterised by an enthusiastic and lively exchange of views, so essential to the achievement of guidelines that command public confidence.

The Council has been extremely well served by its secretariat. Kevin McCormac, the Head of the Secretariat, has brought his practical experience of the courts gained primarily as a Justices’ Clerk and Justices’ Chief Executive, which he has combined with outstanding ability to organise and plan the work of the Council; with the considerable assistance of Joanne Savage, Lesley Dix and the rest of the team he has worked tirelessly and to great effect to support both the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council over the years. Both the Panel and the Council are indebted to them all.

This final annual report demonstrates just how much has been done in the last ten years. From the Panel’s first advice to the Court of Appeal on environmental offences in 2000 (which was not accepted), there are now guidelines for the vast majority of offences sentenced in magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. Everyone involved in the work of the Council can rightly point to its considerable achievement. The Sentencing Council, created by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, will continue to build upon the work of the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council and to contribute to consistency of approach throughout England and Wales to sentencing problems as well as to the improved public awareness of and confidence in sentencing practice.

Lord Judge

Chairman, Sentencing Guidelines Council

Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel2 3Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel2 3

ForewordChairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel

It is both a pleasure and a great sadness to write this Foreword to the final report on the Panel’s work. The element of pleasure is that this affords an opportunity to place on record my thanks to three groups of people whose contributions to the Panel’s work over the last ten-and-a-half years have been of immense significance – to the members of the Panel at the time of its dissolution, four of whom have been members since the beginning; to those who have served as Panel members at some time over the years, not least our chairman for the first eight years, Martin Wasik; and to the members of the secretariat, who have provided such outstanding support and advice throughout.

The element of sadness is that this is the end of an era for the Panel. It is for others to judge the success of our work. What can be said is that we have developed our own method of working – engaging with the law, with Court of Appeal judgments, with research and statistics; consulting widely; commissioning research where it has been thought helpful; and formulating advice to the Court of Appeal and latterly to the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

The Panel has worked increasingly closely with the Council, particularly since the practice has developed of identifying a lead Council member on each piece of work, which has been a great success. The substance and style of sentencing guidelines for England and Wales owes a great deal to what the Panel has done, as well as to the Council. No doubt we will all take a great interest in how the guidelines project develops over the coming years.

Professor Andrew Ashworth C.B.E., Q.C. (Hon)

Chairman, Sentencing Advisory Panel

Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel 5

Section 1The story of the Panel and Council

Ten years of the Sentencing Advisory PanelAndrew Ashworth and Martin Wasik

The Panel was created by sections 80 and 81 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Following advertisements and interviews, the Chairman (Professor Martin Wasik) and 10 members were appointed and began work on July 1, 1999.

The Panel’s main task was to propose guidelines for the sentencing of particular offences to the Court of Appeal; its distinctive approach was to examine the relevant sentencing law, to consider the statistics on sentencing for the type of offence, to consider sentencing levels relative to comparable offences, and then to have a public consultation on a set of provisional proposals.

Each consultation paper was sent to those bodies nominated as statutory consultees (about 25 organisations or groups, including the Council of Circuit Judges, the Magistrates’ Association, the Crown Prosecution Service and many others) and to any specialist organisations which might have particular experience of this type of offence. The consultation paper was also placed on the Panel’s web-site to encourage responses from members of the public as well as from individuals working within the criminal justice system.

After the consultation period, the Panel reviewed all the responses, considered what changes in its provisional proposals might be justified, and then prepared its advice to the Court of Appeal.

The terms of the Crime and Disorder Act provided for the Panel to propose guidelines to the Court of Appeal ‘for a particular category of offence’, and the choice of offences was largely that of the Panel, except that the Court of Appeal was obliged to refer an offence to the Panel before it could deliver a guideline judgment for that offence, and the Home Secretary also had the power to refer a category of offence to the Panel. These powers of referral continued throughout the Panel’s life, but were relatively little used. Whereas the Court of Appeal referred a number of offences to the Panel in those early years (including opium offences and extended sentences), the Home Secretary referred relatively few, although in 2007 the Lord Chancellor referred a whole raft of offences (theft, handling, fraud, forgery, criminal damage, possession of prohibited drugs, robbery and burglary) on the basis that many of these offences straddle the custody/community threshold and that therefore guidance was especially needed. In fact guidelines on burglary, handling and robbery had already been issued, and work on guidelines for theft, fraud and drug offences was in hand.

The Panel’s first advice to the Court of Appeal was on environmental offences, in 2000. This advice, with proposals on a number of different environmental offences, was considered by the Court of Appeal but not accepted, and no guidelines for such offences have been


issued. This outcome was widely perceived as something of a rebuff, though the Court of Appeal was within its statutory authority in not accepting the advice. It became apparent that a close link with the judiciary needed to be established; Lord Woolf took up his appointment as Lord Chief Justice in 2001 and the Panel’s good working relationship with the senior judiciary was clearly demonstrated as several guideline judgments were issued by the Court over the next few months.

In the case of Kelly and Donnelly (2001) the Court accepted a substantial part of the Panel’s advice. Although the Court recoiled from the proposal that the element of racial aggravation should generally lead to an increase of between 40 and 70 per cent over the sentence for the base offence, it did accept that judges should first state the sentence for the base offence and then indicate the amount that was added to reflect the racial element. The Panel proposed guidelines on a number of other offences, including domestic burglary (adopted by the Court of Appeal in McInerney and Keating, 2002, although Lord Woolf C.J. reduced some of the starting points and this caused a stir in the popular press), child pornography offences in Oliver, 2002, where the guidelines have since become central to such cases, and rape in Millberry, 2003, where the Court accepted the Panel’s advice (based on its own commissioned research) that there should be the same sentencing starting point for acquaintance rape as for stranger rape.

In 2003 the system whereby the Panel made proposals to the Court of Appeal which resulted in a guideline judgment was changed. Based on the recommendations of the Halliday Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales (2001), the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provided for the creation of a Sentencing Guidelines Council. Under the new procedure the Council could issue guidelines only after receiving an advice from the Panel. The Panel could propose guidelines of its own motion, or after receiving a notification from the Council that guidelines on a particular subject were required.

The Panel continued to follow its procedure of preparing a consultation paper, having regard to such matters as sentencing practice, the cost and effectiveness of various forms of sentence, and public confidence; and then reviewing the responses and producing an advice for the Council. The Council would then consider framing guidelines and, if it decided to do so, its duty was first to publish them as draft guidelines (having considered the matters enumerated in s.170(5), such as cost and effectiveness, consistency etc) and then to consult the Home Secretary and the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee about them. Having made any amendment to the draft that it considered appropriate, the Council ‘may issue the guidelines as definitive guidelines’ (s.170(9)). Courts were placed under a duty to ‘have regard to any guidelines which are relevant’ to a particular case (s.172(1)), and to give reasons for passing a sentence outside the range indicated by any guidelines (s.174(2)(a)).

The change in the system coincided with a change in working practices that responded to the wide-ranging legislation in 2003. The Panel set about proposing guidelines on the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which created over 60 new offences – a far cry from the earlier


approach of single-offence guidelines, and a demanding task in its own right. At the same time there was a need for guidelines on the appropriate use of the range of new custodial and community sentences created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003; although the Panel had not adhered to the letter of the 1998 Act, and had responded to requests for advice on extended sentences and on minimum terms for murder when its statutory remit was confined to guidelines for categories of offence, the 2003 Act presented a considerable challenge and required the Panel to make proposals so that the new measures could fit into a partly new and partly existing framework. The Panel also made proposals for guidelines for the allocation of offences between magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court under the new sentencing scheme envisaged by the 2003 Act. In the event, parts of the 2003 Act have not yet been implemented, and the work on allocation (with some subsequent revision by the Council following statutory amendment) – together with proposals on custody plus and related forms of sentence – still awaits a decision to bring the legislation into force.

In 2007 Martin Wasik stepped down as Chairman and Andrew Ashworth took over (on what was initially a temporary basis). By this time, the general trend was for the Panel to take on larger packages of offences. There were still some smaller items on the work programme – for example, reduction in sentence for a guilty plea (revised in 2007), and a revised guideline on burglary – and some single-offence proposals that were anything but straightforward, such as the proposed guideline on sentencing for corporate manslaughter, which brought the Panel face-to-face with an awkward problem that it had signaled in its very first advice, the problem of how best to approach the calculation of fines on companies and other organisations.

Recent years have been characterised by large and demanding items, such as the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines (which run to some 200 pages, and which were prepared by a sub-group of the Panel working with a small group of experienced sentencers and advisers), new guidelines on the sentencing of youths under the framework established by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, drug offences, offences of causing death by driving, fraud, theft and dishonesty offences.

In the early days of the Panel it seemed inconceivable that, with a part-time body and a duty to consult widely, it would be possible to prepare guidelines covering the vast majority of offences sentenced in magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court within 10 years. Yet that is what has been achieved, as a result of a surge of activity in the last 4 or 5 years.

There have, however, been difficulties along the way. Obtaining sufficiently reliable and sufficiently detailed statistics was not easy in the early days, although co-operation with the Research and Statistics Directorate has improved the flow of available statistics. Nonetheless, it remains true that the state of English sentencing statistics is relatively poor (as confirmed in the Gage Report, Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: an Evolutionary Approach, 2008), so that information on certain matters is simply not available. The Sentencing Council created by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is to have specific responsibilities for improving the state of sentencing statistics. In the meantime, the


Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat began to publish its newsletter The Sentence in 2004, and in its 9 issues it has provided a time-line of statistics on sentencing in the magistrates’ courts and in the Crown Court, identifying and discussing trends. An attempt to obtain research evidence on sentencing practices in the Crown Court was co-sponsored by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but it foundered after a year, and so there is still no reliable evidence of the actual effect of sentencing guidelines on the sentencing practices of judges.

The Panel has taken seriously the importance of establishing an empirical basis for its proposals, and it has commissioned several pieces of research. It began with research on public attitudes to sentencing for burglary, and research on public attitudes to the relative seriousness of ‘stranger rape,’ ‘date rape’ and ‘relationship rape’. It subsequently commissioned research into thefts from shops, and public attitudes on sentencing for causing death by driving and on general principles of sentencing (such as the effect of previous convictions). The results of these and other enquiries have featured prominently in the Panel’s deliberations and proposals for these offences. Added to the public consultations that the Panel has always conducted, the research has ensured that the Panel stays in touch with public views. It has not always followed those views, where they appear to lack a secure foundation. The Panel’s approach was to seek the justifications for the views put forward by the public, the judges, the police or any consultees. It also maintained a ‘comparative seriousness chart’ which helped to orientate the Panel’s discussions of whether guideline sentences for one offence should be higher or lower than those for certain comparable offences.

Another element in the Panel’s work has been the presence of at least three lay members. The Panel’s membership has varied, but it has had two circuit judges, one district judge and one magistrate for much of its existence; it has had members experienced in police, prosecutions, prisons and probation; and it has had up to three academics. The contribution of the lay members should not be under-estimated, particularly in challenging the assumptions of lawyers and of sentencers.

By failing to make provision for any lay members to be appointed to the new Sentencing Council, members of the Panel feel that an opportunity has been missed. The Panel made some firm submissions to the Secretary of State on the Bill that became the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and also made submissions to the Gage Committee in relation to its 2008 review, and on both occasions it drew attention to the value of lay members in deliberations on sentencing policy.

The ‘outputs’ of the Panel have always attracted attention from the specialist and the popular press. Different approaches have been taken over the years, in an attempt to ensure that newspaper comments focus on the whole package rather than selecting the lowest sentence band and presenting it as if it applied to all offenders. Success has been mixed, but one consequence of the trend for the Panel to take on larger projects (such as the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines or the Youth Sentencing guidelines) is that they require more concentrated attention from reporters than a single-offence guideline.


The Magistrates’ Court and Youth guidelines were prepared by the Panel in the knowledge that they would also be used for the purpose of training magistrates and others in the months prior to full implementation, as were the proposed guidelines on the new sentences in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which were used for training both sentencers and probation officers.

When the Panel was established it was a controversial innovation in the sentencing system. There were many sceptics who said that the Panel would add little of value to the process, and that it would have no impact on practice. In fact, by asserting its independence, by establishing clear and effective working practices, and through the acknowledged high quality of its consultations and advice, virtually all the Panel’s proposals have found their way into law, whether through guideline judgments of the Court of Appeal or definitive guidelines of the Sentencing Guidelines Council.


Six years of the Sentencing Guidelines Council Kevin McCormac

In 2000, the Government commissioned a review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales (the Halliday Review). The report of this review – Making Punishments Work1 – was the basis for many of the sentencing provisions enacted in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The review considered that creation of comprehensive sentencing guidelines was key to the achievement of the aims which it proposed and Chapter 8 of the report concluded with recommendations that codified guidelines should be produced and that a new, independent, machinery should be established for that purpose.

Following extensive consultation, a broad consensus was achieved that a Council should be created and that the Sentencing Advisory Panel should continue but provide its advice to the Council rather than to the Court of Appeal; the secretariat that had supported the Panel was expanded to support both the Panel and the Council. The Council was established (and the Panel continued) by sections 167-173 of the 2003 Act.

The Council needed to command the support of those who would be the primary users of the guidelines it produced and the confidence of all others with an interest in the sentencing of offenders, particularly Parliament and the Government. It was established under the Chairmanship of the Lord Chief Justice and its membership ensured that, through the balance of judicial and non-judicial members and an observer, it had access to experience of every aspect of the disposition of a criminal case, from detection through to completion of sentence. In particular, it was clear that expertise was required regarding the impact of crime on the victims of offences.

Experience was drawn from each tier of court that deals with criminal cases; accordingly, the Council has always included the Vice President of the Court of Appeal (and one other Lord Justice of Appeal), the High Court Judge who chaired the Criminal Committee of the Judicial Studies Board, the Senior District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) and a magistrate.

It was critical that the independence of the Council was clearly demonstrated since its functions placed it in the gap between Parliament (which established offences and sentences and provided the funding for those who administered the sentences imposed) and the judiciary (who made the decisions in individual cases). One of the critical decisions needing to be made when the Council was created was the extent to which the Government and Parliament should have a formal role.

In some jurisdictions, guidelines become effective once agreed by the legislature; this has the advantage of giving the guidelines the force of law but risks more extensive political involvement. In England and Wales, it was clear that the legislature needed to have a formal role in the creation of guidelines but that it was better if the final decision on the content

1 published July 2001


of the guideline rested with the Council itself. This enabled the guidelines to be protected from the risk of inappropriate political influence whilst enabling them to be created taking account of the views of Government and the legislature.

One of the consequences of creating guidelines through two bodies, each with its own consultation phase, has been that the process has been slower for each guideline than if there had been one body with a single consultation. However, an advantage of the two stage process has been that Ministers and the Justice Committee have had specific proposals to consider rather than general questions; the experience of the Panel, in particular, has been that those considering consultation papers find it easier to respond effectively when there are specific proposals compared with situations where views are sought in general.

The Council met for the first time in March 2004; as well as considering a recently completed advice from the Panel, the Council determined that its primary aims were to give authoritative guidance on sentencing, to give a strong lead on the approach to allocation and sentencing issues based on a principled approach which commands general support, and to enable sentencers to make decisions on sentencing that are supported by information on effectiveness of sentences and on the most effective use of resources. It also determined that it would operate as openly and transparently as possible; the minutes of every meeting and all publications are published on the website and the secretariat has taken every opportunity to bring the work of the Council and the Panel to the attention of practitioners and the wider public.

To assist practitioners, an early publication of the Council was the Compendium of Guideline Judgments in which key decisions of the Court of Appeal were summarised in order to provide an easily accessible source of guidance pending the creation of Council guidelines. In 2007, this was expanded to include guidance on the dangerous offender provisions in the 2003 Act summarising both statute and case law and providing decision making flow charts; this was amended in 2008 following legislative changes.

The Council and Panel have also developed a statistical newsletter which brings together a wide range of information regarding the sentencing of adult and youth offenders. This is designed to enable those interested in sentencing at both national and local level to see trends in sentencing practice and, if appropriate, to review the approach locally. Analysis is provided that identifies the significant trends and factors relevant to them. This has become an annual publication which is highly regarded as a source of useful, accessible information.

From the outset, the Council was aware that bodies of sentencing guidelines had been developed in America, both in individual states and in the federal system, and that there was likely to be much to be gained by examining the strengths and weaknesses of those systems. It invited three states with different approaches to London and arranged seminars for practitioners and others interested in guidelines as well as the formal presentation to the Council itself. The invitation was accepted by Ms. Kay Knapp (who had been instrumental in establishing the system in Minnesota), Judge Richard Gebelein (Chair of the


Delaware Sentencing Commission) and Dr. Richard Kern (Director of the Virginia Sentencing Commission). Separate discussion took place with a member of the Federal Sentencing Commission.

As interest in the development of guidelines has grown, the Council, the Panel and its secretariat have developed extensive links with other jurisdictions which has assisted them when deciding whether to proceed with developing a mechanism for creating guidelines. As well as continuing the relationship with various American States, links have been developed with Alberta, Cayman Islands, China, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, South Korea, Turkey and Victoria.

At an early point, the Council also identified criteria against which it would determine how to decide priority when considering its work programme – those offences sentenced in high volume (especially those where a high proportion were subject to a custodial sentence), new offences or sentences and those where a particular problem had been identified on which a guideline was required.

One of the advantages from the creation of a Council has been the opportunity to consider larger groups of offences and a wider range of sentencing principles than would be possible within the context of a guideline judgment. Early priority was given to the new sentencing framework and new sentences contained in the 2003 Act; guidelines were prepared in time to support training in those provisions before they were brought into force in 2005.

Amongst the other topics considered at that stage was the recently enacted Sexual Offences Act 2003; this Act redefined existing offences, in some cases expanding their scope, and created new offences so that it contained over 60 offences. All these were considered in one set of guidelines enabling the Council to ensure that similar conduct was subject to the same sentencing approach whichever charge was prosecuted. Similarly, it has been possible to consider together all the commonly occurring assault offences and a wide range of offences of dishonesty. This approach has enabled the Council to give consideration to the comparative seriousness of offences within a particular group and generally across the range of offences for which it has produced guidelines.

The most extensive undertaking has been the review of the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines which covers all offences commonly sentenced in magistrates’ courts. An advisory group consisting of members of the Sentencing Advisory Panel and key stakeholder groups assisted the Panel and the Council; the consultation undertaken was even more extensive than usual and was supported by independent research regarding the approach to the assessment of financial penalties.

The structure established for the creation of guidelines inevitably resulted in the process being incremental rather than one in which a whole body of guidelines was created at one time. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The incremental approach allows a much greater role for those who are consulted on the guidelines since they are considered in discrete subjects; this has allowed those with an interest in a


particular aspect of the law to participate actively when consultation took place on that aspect and enabled all with an interest to be able to consider a topic to a degree of detail that would not have been possible if a large range of diverse guidelines had been published for consultation at the same time.

Even with such an approach, considerable demands have been made on those consulted and papers covering the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines and Overarching Principles of Sentencing have all presented considerable challenges both in size and in complexity. The continuing willingness of individuals and organisations to devote time to considering and responding to consultation papers and draft guidelines has been greatly appreciated – every response has been read and considered.

A risk from a process in which there are a number of key stages is the potential for knowledge and understanding to be lost as a topic moves through those stages; this is particularly acute when responsibility moves from the Panel to the Council since it is the Panel that undertakes the research prior to the consultation paper and then analyses the responses before producing an advice that is, inevitably, more succinct. The decision to have a single secretariat supporting both bodies reduced the risk but, in order to minimize it further, the Council adopted the practice of identifying one or two if its members as a lead member for each topic. The lead member worked with the secretariat and with the Panel to ensure that there was full understanding of the reasons for recommendations in the Panel’s advice and then took responsibility for presenting that advice to the Council. Every member of the Council has undertaken responsibility for at least one topic.

Despite some strong academic criticism before the Council was established that a judicially led sentencing council was unlikely to be successful, it is clear that the Council has been able to develop an extensive body of guidelines through a process which has enabled everyone with an interest to participate without creating any adverse reactions from any of the key stakeholders. Guidelines are now likely to be available during 2010 for all commonly sentenced offences and for all key issues of principle.


Summary of publicationsDefinitive guidelines

Principles of Sentencing

• Overarching Principles: Seriousness 16 December 2004• New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act

200316 December 2004

• Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea 16 December 2004 – Revised 20 July 2007• Overarching Principles: Domestic

Violence7 December 2006

• Overarching Principles: Assaults on children and Cruelty to a child

20 February 2008

• Overarching Principles: Sentencing Youths

20 November 2009

Offences

• Manslaughter by Reason of Provocation 28 November 2005• Robbery 25 July 2006• Breach of a Protective Order 7 December 2006• Sexual Offences Act 2003 30 April 2007• Fail to Surrender to Bail 29 November 2007• Assaults and other offences against the

person20 February 2008

• Causing Death by Driving 15 July 2008• Theft and Burglary in a building other

than a dwelling9 December 2008

• Breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order 9 December 2008• Attempted Murder 16 July 2009• Sentencing for Fraud - Statutory offences 13 October 2009• Corporate Manslaughter and Health and

Safety Offences Causing Death9 February 2010

Principles and offences combined

Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines (MCSG)

12 May 2008

• Update 1 15 July 2008• Update 2 9 December 2008• Update 3 13 October 2009


Advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel

Tendered to the Court of Appeal

• Environmental offences - 1 March 2000• Offensive weapons - 23 May 2000• Importation and possession of opium - 14 June 2000• Racially aggravated offences - 29 August 2000• Handling stolen goods - 15 March 2001• Extended sentences - 1 November 2001• Minimum terms in murder cases - 23 April 2002• Domestic Burglary - 10 May 2002• Rape - 24 May 2002• Offences involving child pornography - 15 August 2002• Causing death by dangerous driving - 18 February 2003• Alcohol and tobacco smuggling - 10 July 2003

Tendered to the Sentencing Guidelines Council

• Robbery - May 2004• Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea - September 2004• New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003 - September 2004• Manslaughter by reason of provocation - May 2005• Allocation - February 2006• Custodial Sentences of less than 12 Months - March 2006• Domestic violence - April 2006• Sexual Offences Act 2003 - June 2006• Review of Guideline: Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea - January 2007• Sentencing for Bail Act offences - May 2007• Sentencing for Assault and other Offences Against the Person - June 2007• Revised Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines - December 2007• Driving Offences – Causing Death by Driving - January 2008• Sentencing for Offences of Theft and Dishonesty - March 2008• Sentencing for Theft from a Shop - March 2008• Sentencing for Breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order - May 2008• Sentencing for Fraud offences - February 2009• Sentencing Principles – Youths - June 2009• Sentencing for Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences involving

Death - October 2009• Overarching Principles of Sentencing - November 2009• Offences Taken Into Consideration - November 2009 • Sentencing for Drug Offences - March 2010• Sentencing for Domestic Burglary - March 2010


Research reportsResearch has been an essential element in the preparation of all guidelines and in the development of the newsletter described below. As noted above, the Panel has always sought to establish an empirical basis for its proposals. This has included reviews of all relevant research material as part of the preparation of consultation papers, the maintenance of records allowing comparisons to be identified between offences of similar levels of seriousness, the convening of seminars for practitioners and the commissioning of specific research, especially where that could usefully explore public attitudes to sentencing.

It has always been possible for any individual or organisation to contribute to the process of creating a guideline by responding to the Panel’s consultation papers; as well as accompanying publication with a press release, the Panel identified those likely to have a particular interest in the issues under consideration and sought to ensure that the consultation was brought to their attention. However, it is rare for the public generally to respond and the Panel has actively sought to ascertain public attitudes in relation to sentencing for burglary, on the relative seriousness of ‘stranger rape,’ ‘date rape’ and ‘relationship rape’, on sentencing where death was caused by driving and on general principles of sentencing (such as the effect of previous convictions). The results of these and other enquiries have featured prominently in the Panel’s deliberations and proposals for these offences.

6 reports have been completed and form the series described below.

15 January 2002 Sentencing of Domestic BurglaryResearch report 1

24 May 2002 Attitudes to Date Rape and Relationship Rape Research report 2

24 August 2006 Sentencing in Cases of Theft from Shops Research report 3Sentencing in Cases of Theft from Shops Technical Report

4 December 2007 Methods of Calculating Fines in Magistrates’ Courts Research report 4

9 January 2008 Attitudes to the Sentencing of Offences Involving Death by Driving Research report 5

10 February 2009 Study of Sentencing and its Outcomes Pilot report

16 June 2009 Public Attitudes to the Principles of Sentencing Research report 6


The SentenceThe Council and Panel have produced 9 editions of its newsletter designed to keep sentencers and others working in the criminal justice system informed about their work. It was originally envisaged that there would be at least two editions each year, one for general information and one for statistical information about sentencing.

Four general newsletters were produced (September 2004, November 2005, June 2006 and May 2007) providing information about membership of the bodies, progress in relation to the work programme and developments in the process for developing guidelines as it evolved, and informing readers of additional publications such as the annual report and development of tools for sentencers and practitioners such as the Guideline Judgments Case Compendium.

The statistical newsletter has been produced annually (May 2005, January 2006, February 2007, January 2008 and August 2009), as soon as practicable following publication of the annual sentencing statistics for England and Wales. The purpose of the newsletter is to bring together all important data concerning sentencing (of both adult and youth offenders) at national and local level in a way that assists local managers and judiciary to examine practice in their area.

Guideline Judgments – Case CompendiumPublished in March 2005, the compendium was one of the earliest publications of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It was designed to bring together in a single source those judgments of the Court of Appeal relating to sentencing that ought most to be readily accessible to a court, effectively establishing a baseline of existing authoritative guidance. The compendium has been updated on 5 occasions (November 2005, June 2006, April 2007, July 2008 and March 2010) under the oversight of the Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

As a reference tool, the compendium has proven to be a popular and valuable resource used principally by sentencers and practitioners. An important development was the addition of the supplement Dangerous Offenders – guide for sentencers and practitioners (published in September 2007 and updated in July 2008 to incorporate legislative changes), to assist sentencers implementing the sentences for public protection introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Annual ReportsThe Panel was set up in 1999, providing advice to the Court of Appeal. It produced and published five summaries of its work from 1999 through to 2004.

The Council came into existence in April 2004 and began its work in conjunction with the Panel. It is a statutory requirement that the Council reports each year on the exercise of its functions; the report must be laid before Parliament and published. The first report was published in June 2005 and was a joint report from the Council and Panel.


Section 2Business report: April 2009 to February 2010

Summary of key achievements

Project Milestone

Principles of Sentencing for Youths Panel consultation paper published 18 December 2008

Burglary in a dwelling Panel consultation paper published 12 May 2009

Public Attitudes to Sentencing – Research Report

Published June 2009

Attempted Murder Guideline published 16 July 2009Overarching Principles: Sentencing Youths Consultation guideline and advice of the

Panel published 30 June 2009The Sentence Issue 09 (Statistical) Published August 2009 Consultation on revision to statutory provisions regarding the fixing of the minimum term within a mandatory life sentence imposed following conviction for murder

Response submitted to Justice Secretary September 2009

Sentencing for Fraud – Statutory offences Guideline published 13 October 2009MCSG Update 3 Incorporating the sentencing for fraud

guidelines and additional guidance in relation to sentencing health and safety offences, published 13 October 2009

Corporate Manslaughter & Health and Safety Offences Causing Death

Consultation guideline and advice of the Panel published 27 October 2009

Overarching Principles: Sentencing Youths Guideline published 20 November 2009Overarching Principles of Sentencing, Offences Taken Into Consideration

Panel advice delivered to Council November 2009


Guideline published 9 February 2010

Sentencing for Drug offences Panel advice delivered to Council March 2010

Sentencing for Domestic Burglary Panel advice delivered to Council March 2010


Guideline development processThe Panel and the Council complete a number of stages to produce a guideline.

The consultation stages are particularly important, and the Panel and Council draw heavily on the expertise of those who respond. The Panel is particularly conscious of the demands that have been made this year; not only has the number of consultations been high but some have been very lengthy and have covered highly complex issues. The Panel continues to benefit greatly from those responses, each of which is considered by every member. During this year, the Panel has complemented its normal consultation process with a wide ranging survey of public attitudes to sentencing; the outcome of this survey has assisted the Panel in preparing two of its advices.

The Council consults directly with Ministers and the Justice Select Committee; the Council has appreciated greatly the consideration that has been given to consultation guidelines and the extent to which responses have been received within the timescales provided. During this year, the Council has extended its consultation in respect of some of the subjects under consideration because of the complexity of the issues and the extent to which the consultation guidelines and/or the advice of the Panel has changed from the Panel consultation paper.

The Panel researches topics and prepares consultation papers

The Panel consults regular consultees and the wider public

The Panel considers responses and submits advice to the Council

The Council considers the advice and develops a draft guideline – both papers published

The Council considers responses and issues definitive guidelines

Further detail is set out below of the guidelines that have been worked on during the period of this report.

Completed projects

Attempted MurderStatus – Definitive guideline published

The Panel consultation paper on assaults and other offences against the person considered a range of offences including attempted murder. When considering the responses to the consultation guideline based on that advice, it was clear that there was a significant divergence of views in relation to the approach to sentence for attempted murder. Accordingly, the Council separated out that offence for further consideration in order to enable the guidelines to be published for the remainder of the offences.

Following that further consideration, a revised definitive guideline was produced and published completing guidelines for all commonly sentenced offences of violence.


Sentencing for Fraud – Statutory offencesStatus – Definitive guideline published

A coherent approach is required for this group of dishonesty offences not least because the same conduct could potentially be charged as one of a number of different offences. The Panel submitted its advice in October 2008, basing its proposals on the type of fraudulent behaviour rather than on the particular offence of which a person is convicted. The Council’s consultation and definitive guidelines incorporated that approach and, although frauds committed against public and private sector organisations were presented separately, the starting points and sentencing ranges were the same to encourage a consistent approach.

The definitive guideline completes a further stage of the project to develop guidelines for all the commonly sentenced offences of dishonesty.

Principles of Sentencing for YouthsStatus – Definitive guideline published

The approach to sentencing young offenders is different from that for adults. The Panel’s comprehensive consultation paper examined the historical development of the youth justice system for England and Wales, the ethos behind it and the key principles that underpin the framework for sentencing offenders aged 10 to 17 with particular reference to the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The approach to determining the custody and community order thresholds, the circumstances in which a case involving a young person should be sentenced in the Crown Court rather than in a youth court and the determination of the length of any custodial sentence are all issues of particular significance that were considered in detail.

There was substantial agreement with the Panel’s proposals and the consultation guideline; this enabled close collaboration with those responsible for the training of judiciary and practitioners in order to assist implementation. The definitive guideline was published shortly before the implementation of the 2008 Act provisions.

Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines Status – Updates published; Welsh language version publishedThese guidelines have been produced in loose leaf format to enable changes to be made relatively simply – over 35,000 copies of the guidelines have been distributed. Through the efficiency of the Welsh Language Unit of HMCS, it was possible to produce these guidelines in the Welsh language and to ensure that the regular updates are also issued in this format.

As well as producing updates to incorporate the effect of the definitive guidelines published during the year for offences sentenced in a magistrates’ court, supplementary material was developed to take account of changes in penalties for certain environmental offences and other legislative or case law changes.



Status – Definitive guideline published

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 creates a new offence (supplementing existing health and safety offences) which can be committed where death is caused following a serious breach of the duty of care placed on an organisation. It may be committed by organisations operating in the private sector, in the public sector or in the third sector and this presents considerable difficulties in constructing an approach that recognises both the extreme seriousness of the offence and the widely varying financial circumstances of the offender.

Where death is caused, it will still be possible for there to be a prosecution for health and safety offences either as an alternative to, or in addition to, the offence of corporate manslaughter. Accordingly, the Panel consulted on the approach to sentencing where death was caused whether that resulted in conviction for the new offence or for a breach of health and safety legislation.

The Panel submitted its advice to the Council in October 2008 and the Council published a consultation guideline in October 2009 following further extensive consideration of the financial structures of those susceptible to prosecution, especially publicly funded organisations. The 36 responses supported the principle-based approach to sentencing proposed and the definitive guideline was published in February 2010.

Partially completed projects

Overarching Principles of Sentencing

Status – Panel advice delivered to Council This project reviews the Council’s definitive guidelines Overarching Principles: Seriousness and New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003. It also considers a range of other issues related to the assessment of offence seriousness and the application of the sentencing framework for adult offenders, with a view to providing an up to date and enhanced set of general sentencing principles. The Panel’s full public consultation was supplemented by independent research examining public attitudes to key principles of sentencing (see below).

A significant part of this consultation and advice concerned the approach to the sentencing of women offenders.

This advice will be considered in detail by the new Sentencing Council.


Offences taken into consideration Status – Panel advice delivered to Council

Following concerns that different approaches were being adopted when a court was asked to take offences into consideration, the Panel prepared a consultation paper and then delivered an advice to the Council. That advice was concluded in a previous year but the Council determined that detailed consideration should be deferred pending receipt of the advice on the Overarching Principles of Sentencing of which it would form a part.

This advice also will be considered in detail by the new Sentencing Council.

Sentencing for Drug Offences Status – Panel advice delivered to Council

The consultation paper considered sentencing for a range of drug offences, including importation and exportation, production, supply or offering to supply, possession and possession with intent to supply. Existing guidance was reviewed and the paper examined the various characteristics that might influence the assessment of offence seriousness. Particular consideration was given to the role in the supply chain played by an individual offender and to the significance of both the quantity and the purity of the drugs involved. Issues relating to the interplay between sentencing and the confiscation of assets and the particular circumstances of ‘drug couriers’ were also considered.


Sentencing for Domestic Burglary Status – Panel advice delivered to CouncilThe Panel consultation paper reviewed developments since its previous advice on Domestic Burglary in 2002 and the subsequent Court of Appeal guideline judgment in McInerney and Keating. Noting the change in sentencing practice that followed that judgment, the changes to the sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the style and format now adopted by Council guidelines, the Panel considered how best to structure the approach to sentencing for this serious offence recognising both the continuing reduction in the number of offences committed and the continuing recognition of the harm that is experienced by those whose home is burgled. Account was taken also of the Court of Appeal guideline judgment in Saw and others which was handed down whilst the Panel was preparing its consultation paper. This paper complemented the recently published definitive guidelines on Theft and Burglary of a building other than a dwelling and is a further (and possibly final) stage in the development of guidelines for commonly sentenced offences of dishonesty.



Other projects

ResearchDuring 2008/09, the Panel commissioned and concluded a major research project exploring public attitudes to sentencing; details of this project were included in the last Annual Report.

Although the Panel normally publishes research alongside the advice to which it relates, it was recognised that the findings from this research were likely to be relevant to a number of other projects being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice. Accordingly, it was decided to publish the final report in June 2009.

Although there has been no further research commissioned by the Panel or the Council, the secretariat has been active in supporting the Ministry of Justice as it sought to develop means by which information could be gathered which would be relevant to the work of the Sentencing Council.

Single source documentOne of the aims identified by the Sentencing Guidelines Council when it was created was to produce guidelines in a single source readily accessible to judiciary, to practitioners and to anyone else interested in what they contained.

The Council has produced a Compendium of Guideline Judgments which has been updated on a number of occasions most significantly to include a guide to the dangerous offender provisions; that guide was itself amended so that guidance could be provided shortly in advance of the implementation of the changes to the relevant provisions contained in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

In addition, the Council has produced the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines which contains all the guidelines relevant to sentence in a magistrates’ court in a single document suited to the needs of magistrates.

By the conclusion of the period covered by this report, definitive guidelines and/or Panel advice will have been produced for all commonly sentenced offences and all key issues of principle. The Sentencing Guidelines Council considered that this presented a good opportunity to bring together all its guidelines in a single source suited to judiciary and practitioners in the Crown Court; this would complement the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the Council established a project to commence work on this document so that a draft would be ready for the Sentencing Council to consider at an early meeting.

A reference group has been established to ensure that the views of those who use the guidelines will be fully incorporated as the style and format is developed.


Communications

Communicating to a wide range of audiences continues to be an important aspect of the work of the Council and Panel. For each Council and Panel publication, every effort is taken to provide press releases that are succinct and informative about the nature of the document, the issues under consideration and the purpose of the publication, which varies according to the stage reached - it may be to attract responses from as wide a range of stakeholders, practitioners and interested parties as possible, or to inform people that a definitive guideline has been issued and comes into effect on a particular date. The secretariat is responsive to the media and interested parties, seeking to facilitate reports that are accurate and well informed.

Throughout the year there has been a significant level of interest from media and interested parties. In addition, there is continuing interest in the work of the Council from overseas jurisdictions. During the year, academic, judicial and practitioner visitors were welcomed from America, Australia, Canada, Croatia, Japan, New Zealand, Romania and South Korea and discussions took place briefing them on the development of guidelines in England and Wales.

Freedom of informationThe Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires every public authority to adopt and maintain a publication scheme detailing the types of information it makes routinely available to the public. The Council and the Panel each has a publication scheme which has been approved by the Information Commissioner; these are available on our website, and on request to enquirers. Both schemes are being updated to ensure that the correct Crown Copyright classification is assigned to the various documents we produce.

The Act obliges public bodies to make available to members of the public, on request, any other information held by them on particular topics, unless such information comes into one of the categories which are exempt under the Act. From April 2009 to January 2010, 20 requests under the Act were received (19 of which were dealt with within the specified time limit). A high proportion of them sought information that was available generally from the secretariat or elsewhere.

The sentencing guidelines websiteThe website – www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk – has continued to be an important channel of communication and the level of use has remained consistently high, as depicted in the diagram below. All communication material developed by the secretariat includes details of the website in order to direct interested individuals and organisations to the most up-to-date source of information.

The diagram provides an overall picture of the number of visits to the website in the period covered by this report.

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk


40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10


Section 3Membership details of the Council and Panel

Sentencing Guidelines Council Sentencing Advisory Panel

Chairman ChairmanLord Judge Andrew Ashworth

Deputy Chairman Deputy ChairmanSir John Thomas Howard Riddle

Members MembersPeter Beaumont Anthony AnsellAnthony Edwards John CrawforthSir Anthony Hughes Amritlal DevaniMichael Mettyear Anne FullerPeter Neyroud Frances HeidensohnSir Christopher Pitchford David MallenTeresa Reynolds Michael MorganMalathy Sitaram John StaplesKeir Starmer Joan WebsterTim Workman Christopher Woolley

Observers Andrew AshworthHelen Edwards

Continuity in membership throughout the period of this report has assisted both bodies to conclude the projects which have been undertaken.

Registers of interests of members of the Council and Panel for the period covered by this report can be found at Annex A and Annex B respectively.


History of Membership

Sentencing Advisory Panel

HH Judge Anthony Ansell Member from 1 July 2005Professor Andrew Ashworth C.B.E., Q.C. (Hon) Member from 1 July 1999;

Chairman from 1 July 2007Pamela Brown Member from 1 July 1999 to

8 September 2000Lord Chan Member from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2005HH Judge Philip Clegg Member from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2008John Crawforth O.B.E. Member from 16 May 2007Joanna Crowley Member from 1 July 2005 to 30 April 2008HH Judge Sir Rhys Davies Q.C. Member from 1 February 2000 to

30 June 2005Amritlal Devani Member from 1 July 2005Anne Fuller O.B.E. J.P. Member from 1 July 1999Heather Harker Member from 1 July 1999 to 31 July 2006Professor Frances Heidensohn Member from 1 July 1999HH Judge Peter Jones Member from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2005David Mallen C.B.E. Member from 1 July 1999HH Judge Michael Mettyear Member from 1 July 1999 to

28 February 2004Michael Morgan Member from 1 April 2001Judge Howard Riddle Member from 2 August 2004;

Deputy Chairman from July 2007John Staples Member from 14 July 2003Sir Richard Tilt Member from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2002Professor Martin Wasik C.B.E. Chairman from 1 July 1999 to

30 June 2007Joan Webster Q.P.M. Member from 1 February 2000Christopher Woolley Member from 14 July 2003


Sentencing Guidelines Council

HH Judge Peter Beaumont Member from 5 March 2004Mr Justice Peter Crane Member from 5 March 2004 to

March 2006Anthony Edwards Member from 5 March 2004Lord Justice Anthony Hughes Member from 1 January 2009Lord Justice Igor Judge Member from 1 October 2005;

Deputy Chairman from March 2006; Lord Judge, Chairman from 1 October 2008

Lord Justice John Kay Member from 5 March 2004 to July 2004Lord Justice Paul Kennedy Member from 18 August 2004 to

October 2005Lord Justice David Latham Member from April 2006 to January 2009Sir Ken Macdonald Q.C. Member from 5 March 2004 to

October 2008HH Judge Michael Mettyear Member from 5 March 2004Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Chairman from 1 October 2005 to

September 2008Peter Neyroud Member from 5 March 2004Mr Justice Christopher Pitchford Member from April 2008Teresa Reynolds Member from 5 March 2004Lord Justice Christopher Rose Member and Deputy Chairman from

5 March 2004 to March 2006Malathy Sitaram J.P. Member from 5 March 2004Keir Starmer Q.C. Member from 10 November 2008Lord Justice John Thomas Member and Deputy Chairman from

10 October 2008Lord Woolf of Barnes Chairman from 1 October 2004 to

September 2005Judge Tim Workman Member from 5 March 2004


Section 4Secretariat activity and support

Members of the Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat are:

Kevin McCormac Head of SecretariatJoanne Savage Secretary to the CouncilLesley Dix Secretary to the PanelNita Bhupal Senior Research OfficerAlice Ripley (to May 2009) Senior Policy OfficerEmma Bethell Graduate Intern Policy OfficerEbere Ezete Manager, Administrative Support TeamHusnara Begum Administrative Support TeamJessica Queenan Administrative Support TeamGareth Sweny Administrative Support TeamLinda Paice Administrative Support Team

Work and eventsThe composition of the secretariat supporting the Panel and Council brings together officials with substantial direct experience of the work of the courts and those with considerable experience of policy development. In addition, communications advice is provided on a consultancy basis by Sheree Dodd, a specialist in public sector communications.

The past twelve months have been a busy and challenging time for the secretariat. Whilst staff resources have been reduced as vacancies have not been filled, the volume of work has remained constantly high with up to 9 complex projects being managed through either the Council or the Panel at any one time.

One of the most demanding areas of work for the secretariat this year has been the drafting, printing and distribution of a substantial number of publications, particularly consultation papers, consultation and definitive guidelines, research reports and The Sentence.

Projects are not limited to assisting the development of advice and guidelines. The secretariat has had a full programme of work designed to maintain and develop links with other jurisdictions, support judicial training and strengthen communication with stakeholders. These include:

• Presentations on sentencing guidelines to judicial and criminal justice delegates taking part in courses of study in the UK organised by the Royal Institute of Public Administration and by Public Administration International. Visiting delegates came from Botswana, Ghana, the Maldives, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria and Pakistan.


• Addressing judicial, stakeholder and practitioner audiences including delegates attending the South West and the North East Regions Bench Chairmen’s conferences and the Justices’ Clerks’ Society conference.

• Maintaining and developing links with other jurisdictions including hosting visits from Judge Sato of Tokyo District Court, the Superior Council of Magistracy of the Republic of Romania, Justice William Young from New Zealand, members of the judiciary from Alberta, Canada, a Japanese Public Prosecutor and special advisers to the South Korean Sentencing Commission. The secretariat was also represented at the National Association of Sentencing Commissions’ annual conference in Baltimore, Maryland where a presentation was given on current practice and recent developments in sentencing guidelines.

• Representation at a variety of seminars and events relevant to current work projects and sentencing generally, including a roundtable discussion organised by the Prison Reform Trust to mark the launch of their report ‘Out of Trouble – Reducing Child Imprisonment in England and Wales: Lessons from Abroad’, a seminar organised by the Swedish Crime Prevention Council and attending the launch of ‘Courts and Sentencing’ by the Centre for Social Justice.

Members of the secretariat have taken part in a number of training events throughout the year specific for members of the judiciary and ‘train the trainer’ events. The timetable for introduction of changes to the sentencing framework for sentencing youths and preparation of the guideline to support implementation of that was very challenging and the secretariat worked closely with the JSB in the development of materials and delivery of training events.

Following judicial recruitment in the past year (particularly for Recorders and Deputy District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts)), the JSB ran a series of induction training seminars for those appointed. The secretariat ensured that all those to be trained received a pack of definitive guidelines and a copy of the Guideline Judgments Case Compendium, and these formed an integral part of the materials provided to them in advance of their training.

Budget/financial details

Members’ fees and expensesThose members of the Council and Panel who are not employed on a full time basis in the criminal justice system are entitled to claim fees for attending meetings of the Council or Panel. All members are entitled to claim reimbursement of travelling and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred in the course of business. Those fees and expenses are paid by the Ministry of Justice.

The daily rate of fees payable to members from April 2009 was £226.

The Chairman of the Panel is entitled to claim a daily fee for meetings of the Panel and pro rata for other necessary duties. The daily rate payable from April 2009 was £380.


During the period 1 April 2009 to 31 January 2010, the total expenditure on fees and expenses (to nearest £100) for Council members was £6,600; for Panel members the total was £27,500.

Other expenditureThe secretariat also administers a budget, provided by the Ministry of Justice, to cover expenditure on staff salaries and training, research and publications and on items such as office equipment and stationery. These figures relate to the period 1 April 2009 to 31 January 2010.

Total expenditure from budget in 2009/2010 (to 31 January)

Staff salaries *£417,400Office expenditure, training and meetings *£30,600Research, publications and website *£81,700Total expenditure *£529,700* to nearest £100


Annex ASentencing Guidelines Council

Register of Interests

Name Appointment and Interests to declare

Lord Judge From 1st October 2008 (in capacity as the Lord Chief Justice)

No personal or business interests to declare

Peter Beaumont From 5th March 2004 to 4th March 2008. Re-appointed 5th March 2008 to 4th March 2011

No personal or business interests to declareAnthony Edwards From 5th March 2004 to 4th March 2009.

Re-appointed 5th March 2009 to 4th March 2010

Remunerated employment as senior partner of T.V. Edwards (solicitors) – firm has contracts with the Legal Services Commission and various police service areas for training, criminal and civil legal services

Member of:

• Council of Justice

• Law Society

• Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG)

• Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association

Subscriber, Legal Action Group

Publications:

• Paid writer of Criminal Law Update published in the Law Society’s Gazette

• Paid member of the editorial board of Criminal Law Review (a Sweet and Maxwell publication)

• Paid member of the editorial board of Cordery on Solicitors (Lexis Nexis)

• Paid writer for Law Society publications

• Author of Advising a Suspect in a Police Station (Sweet & Maxwell)

Sir Anthony Hughes From 1st January 2009 (in capacity as the Vice President of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal)




Michael Mettyear From 5th March 2004 to 4th March 2007. Re-appointed 5th March 2007 to 4th March 2010

No personal or business interests to declarePeter Neyroud From 5th March 2004 to 4th March 2008.


No personal or business interests to declareSir Christopher Pitchford From April 2006 (in capacity as Director of Training Criminal

Group, Judicial Studies Board)

No personal or business interests to declareTeresa Reynolds From 5th March 2004 to 4th March 2007.


No personal or business interests to declareMalathy Sitaram From 5th March 2004 to 4th March 2009.


No personal or business interests to declareKeir Starmer From 10th November 2008 (in capacity as Director of Public

Prosecutions)

No personal or business interests to declareSir John Thomas From 10th October 2008 to 9th October 2011

No personal or business interests to declareTim Workman From 5th March 2004 (in capacity as Senior District Judge)

No personal or business interests to declareAndrew Ashworth Observer in capacity as Chairman of the Sentencing Advisory

Panel

See Register of Interests for the Sentencing Advisory PanelHelen Edwards From April 2009, Observer appointed by Secretary of State,

Director General, Criminal Justice, Ministry of Justice



Annex BSentencing Advisory Panel

Register of Interests


Andrew Ashworth Appointed 1 July 1999; re-appointed 1 July 2002; re-appointed 1 July 2005; re-appointed 1 July 2008; extended to 30 June 2010

Member of:

• Council member, Justice

• Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

• Magistrates’ AssociationAnthony Ansell Appointed 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2008;

re-appointed 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011

Honorary member of London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association

John Crawforth Appointed 16 May 2007 to 30 June 2008; re-appointed 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011

Member, Greater Manchester Probation Board

Member, Greater Manchester Criminal Justice Board

Probation Chiefs’ Association – lead member for sentencing/court issues

Amritlal Devani Appointed 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2008; extended until 30 June 2010

Member of Employment Tribunal

Associate member of General Medical Council

Race Relations Adviser/Assessor, Ministry of JusticeAnne Fuller Appointed 1 July 1999; re-appointed 1 July 2002; re-

appointed 1 July 2005; re-appointed 1 July 2008; extended to 30 June 2010

Vice President, Magistrates’ Association

Member of:

• Review Panel of the Institute of Chartered Accountants

• SOVA (Society of Voluntary Associates)



Frances Heidensohn Appointed 1 July 1999; re-appointed 1 July 2002; re-appointed 1 July 2005; re-appointed 1 July 2008; extended to 30 June 2010

Member of Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

Lay chair of appointment committees for the NHS and the London Postgraduate Deanery

Patron, Griffin Society

Lay member, General Social Care Council Conduct Committee

Chair, General Social Care Council Registration Committee

Editor, British Journal of SociologyDavid Mallen Appointed 1 July 1999; re-appointed 1 July 2002;

re-appointed 1 July 2005; re-appointed 1 July 2008; extended to 30 June 2010

No personal or business interests to declareMichael Morgan Appointed 1 April 2001; re-appointed 1 July 2002;

re-appointed 1 July 2005; re-appointed 1 July 2008; extended to 30 June 2010

Trustee of Compass (Drug Referral Agency)Howard Riddle Appointed 2 August 2004; re-appointed 1 July 2005; re-

appointed 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011

Member of:

• Law Society

• Magistrates’ Association

• London Criminal Courts’ Solicitors Association

Contributing editor to Wilkinson’s Road Traffic OffencesJohn Staples Appointed 14 July 2003; re-appointed 1 July 2005;

re-appointed 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011

Trustee of Compass (Drug Referral Agency)

Chair, Circles of Support and Accountability Steering Group, Yorkshire and Humberside



Joan Webster Appointed 1 February 2000; re-appointed 1 July 2002; re-appointed 1 July 2005; re-appointed 1 July 2008; extended to 30 June 2010

No personal or business interests to declareChristopher Woolley Appointed 14 July 2003; re-appointed 1 July 2005 to

30 June 2008; extended until 30 June 2010

Congestion Charge Adjudicator, PATAS

Immigration judge

Member of:

• Law Society

• Criminal Justice Board for South Wales

• QC Selection Panel for England and Wales

Lord Chancellor’s advisory committee for the Welsh Language


Definitive guidelinesThe Council has published the following definitive guidelines to the end of February 2010.

Definitive guideline Published Effective from

Overarching Principles: Seriousness 16 December 2004 4 April 2005

New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003

16 December 2004 4 April 2005

Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea

16 December 2004

Revised 20 July 2007

10 January 2005

Revised 23 July 2007Manslaughter by Reason of Provocation

28 November 2005 28 November 2005

Robbery 25 July 2006 1 August 2006Overarching Principles: Domestic Violence

7 December 2006 18 December 2006

Breach of a Protective Order 7 December 2006 18 December 2006Sexual Offences Act 2003 30 April 2007 14 May 2007Fail to Surrender to Bail 29 November 2007 10 December 2007Assaults and other offences against the person

20 February 2008 3 March 2008

Overarching Principles: Assaults on children and Cruelty to a child

20 February 2008 3 March 2008

Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines (MCSG)

12 May 2008 4 August 2008

Update 1 15 July 2008 4 August 2008Update 2 9 December 2008 5 January 2009Update 3 13 October 2009 26 October 2009Causing Death by Driving 15 July 2008 4 August 2008Theft and Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

9 December 2008 5 January 2009

Breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order

9 December 2008 5 January 2009

Attempted Murder 16 July 2009 27 July 2009Sentencing for Fraud - Statutory offences

13 October 2009 26 October 2009

Overarching Principles: Sentencing Youths

20 November 2009 30 November 2009

Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences Causing Death

9 February 2010 15 February 2010

Copies of this report may be obtained from:Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat4th Floor8–10 Great George StreetLondonSW1P 3AE

Telephone: 020 7084 8130Fax: 020 7084 8114or from our website at www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk

Documents

Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentnecing Advisory ...webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100519200657/http:/www... · Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel