Consultation on Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea

RoadPeace have strong views on this issue based on literally hundreds of cases.

We are grateful of the opportunity to respond but very concerned that we were not advised of the consultation so that we are replying today, as you requested, without adequate time to do more than make brief general comments, A to D and some recommendations of the issues to be considered by a court before giving a reduction for a guilty plea. The final section answers your questions.

Each case and each defendant is different and, although Guidelines are useful for consistency, they must be Guidelines and not followed rigidly, regardless of the individual circumstances. Our impression is that reductions are currently given routinely and we would be concerned if this consultation were to result in greater reductions being given. The criminal justice system must deliver justice and not see its goal as cost cutting by reducing the number of people in prison.

We strongly oppose any automatic reduction in sentence for a guilty plea for the reasons set out below and believe that the court should consider all the particular circumstances of the case before making any decision to reduce a sentence for a guilty plea.

A. Gulf between available charges

In Road Traffic cases involving a death or serious injury, the most frequent charge is Driving without Due Care and Attention, a summary offence, carrying a maximum sentence of a disqualification and fine. In the case of a death, there are two indictable offences available: Causing Death by Dangerous Driving and Causing Death by Careless Driving under the influence of death or drugs, carrying a maximum now of 14 years. This enormous gulf between the two possible outcomes makes it clear that a defendant will have every incentive to plead guilty to the lesser offence. He will then obtain the additional reward of a reduction in the trivial sentence available.

B. Successive reductions in charges and sentence

Offenders are often only charged with some of the offences actually committed to save time and expense; because sentences will usually run concurrently anyway. This means that the offender is already only facing a possible sentence for less offences than he actually committed. If there is a further reduction to lesser charges followed by a reduction for a guilty plea followed by an automatic reduction in sentence actually served, the actual punishment endured is completely unrelated to the original criminal conduct.

C. Plea in Mitigation contrasted with Victims Personal Statement

It is also vital to appreciate that the Victim Personal Statement Scheme does not permit the victim to express an opinion on sentence. This is particularly unjust because the plea in mitigation enables the offender to put forward arguments for a lesser sentence or against a custodial sentence.

This plea is also delivered 'off the cuff' so that the prosecution do not receive an advance copy to prepare counter arguments or challenge the detail of the plea. Police describe the process as 'bring on the violins' and DfT's 'Dangerous Driving and the Law ' makes the point that in actual cases followed by researchers, there was a lack of the remorse alleged by counsel in the defendants conduct outside the court. Our members have described offenders punching the air and whooping with delight, after being described minutes before as broken men.

D. Solicitors and Counsel

There must be more stringent control over irresponsible conduct in playing the system and professional censure on those who do so and, if appropriate, charges brought.

Recommendations for Guidelines for considering a reduction in sentence

Reductions must be viewed in all the circumstances and not be automatic. The court must consider inter alia:

1) The timing and circumstances of the guilty plea. Was it part of a plea bargaining process? Was the evidence overwhelming ?
2) The offence itself, what the offender actually did, the severity of the conduct in the context of the offence charged.
3) The available charges. Is it a case where there was a possibility of a more serious charge and a difficulty in deciding which was the appropriate one? Have other charges been dropped by CPS? It is customary to avoid a list of charges but if the facts show that other offences were committed, this should be considered.
4) The effect on the victim of the offence, the stress and hearings before guilty plea and of the reduced sentence. The offender may be back on the streets near their home before they have had time to come to terms with their loss or traumatic experience.
5) The effect on witnesses of the delay in the guilty plea. Did they have to attend earlier hearings? Was it particularly distressing for them? How much time was wasted? Distances travelled to court and personal circumstances?
6) The cost to the public purse of any delay in making the plea eg number of witnesses, adjournments, CPS and Police time wasted.

Questions

1.No. Justice is not a matter of efficient delivery of a system but concerned with individuals and concepts of human behaviour, which is acceptable in society and which is intolerable and criminal. Remorse is not something which can be measured but by looking at all the circumstances of the case, a decision can be made which will include a credit for solid evidence of remorse. This consultation must not be a means of justifying lower sentences because the prisons are full and expensive to maintain.
2.Yes
3.Yes .It must be made clear that a reduction is being given and why.
4. Maximum reduction should be expressed in terms of a proportion, one third. In individual cases, it need not be a precise fraction.
5.i It would be helpful to identify stages but an additional one, at the scene is needed. The paper overstates the case, in discussing situations where the evidence appeared overwhelming. Most will wait for legal advice because there may be a loophole, a procedural irregularity.
The discount for a plea at each stage must not be cast in stone and all the circumstances considered (as discussed above) not simply timing.

5ii One third should be the maximum. I am assuming that minimum level means the greatest possible reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. The minimum reduction is nil. A late guilty plea or one for obviously cynical reasons does not deserve any reduction.

6.No .The earliest opportunity is at the scene, to the first police officer on the scene.
7.No.Reduction must not be automatic. There will be other situations.
8. I am unable to answer the question as phrased but it would be wrong for Magistrates to pass sentence solely because there is a guilty plea, when otherwise the case would be passed for sentence to the Crown Court.
In very rare cases, it might be appropriate for a custodial sentence to be avoided but in most cases, if a custodial sentence was to be expected, a minimum should be served, however short. The requirement for the court to justify the reduction is essential.
9.There is no logical reason for such a restriction but it will obviously be impossible to reduce some penalties eg a forfeiture of a vehicle.
10. Yes. The Youth courts and cases involving the vulnerable should be treated in a more compassionate manner.

Summary

Reduction of sentence for a guilty plea should not be automatic nor should guidelines become automatic, any reduction should always depend on the particular circumstances of the case. The danger in treating guilty pleas as a separate issue is that defendants will plead guilty purely for the discount. This probably happens already but it will not reduce crime and will simply provide a cheaper way of moving hardened criminals through the system. This has no longterm beneficial effect on society, only saving money in the short term. It may even make them more likely to re-offend because they can get a shorter sentence simply by putting their hands up at a slightly earlier stage.

Mrs Zoe Stow, Chair RoadPeace