Ex abundanti cautela

 

  

When I worked in the Home Office thirty years ago, my boss, a former barrister, was fond of bandying around Latin legal tags. His comments on my draft submissions to ministers often included the principle of being on the safe side.    

This certainly seems the approach the Sentencing Council has adopted in response to the new law on sentencing guidelines and pre-sentence reports (PSRs).  It has not only paused the new guideline that led to the rumpus – a revised version of the “Imposition of community and custodial sentences” will now come into effect on 1^st September.  The Council has also amended a number of existing guidelines with immediate effect. They say they’ve done so “to be confident that all sentencing guidelines comply with the new legislation”.

But have they gone further than they need to?

The revised version of the Imposition guideline has of course removed what were considered the offending paragraphs about the cohorts for whom a PSR would normally be considered necessary. While neither young adults nor women are mentioned specifically in the new law, courts will no longer be advised that when considering a custodial or community sentence for them they should normally ask the Probation Service for a pre-sentence report.

But the guideline does continue to say that “further information on age and/or lack of maturity can also be taken into account by courts when sentencing a young adult;” and that “it is important for the court to ensure that it has sufficient information about a female offender’s background”.

As for mothers with dependent children, pregnant and post-natal offenders, the court should obtain “detailed information” before sentencing them.

The Council has done as much as it could to keep the message that for these cohorts at least courts should generally be finding out as much as possible about their personal characteristics. In practical terms this, hopefully more often than not, will be by asking for a PSR.

The Council has also felt the need to amend the detailed explanations it includes in drop down form in its digital guidelines. Here I’d say they’ve gone too far. In the section on assessing the remorsefulness of an offender, they’ve removed the phrase “If a PSR has been prepared it may provide valuable assistance in this regard”. Also gone is the suggestion that a court will be assisted by a PSR in making an assessment of whether an offender has addressed an addiction or their offending behaviour.  Both of these statements are incontrovertibly true and it’s hard to see how they breach the new law.

Most worrying is the change the Council’s made to its guideline on sentencing children and young people. The original version stated that in making an assessment of whether a child under 18 is dangerous “it will be essential to obtain a pre-sentence report”. This has now been struck out. So, it seems, it is no longer essential.

The guideline continues to say that “the assessment of dangerousness should take into account all the available information relating to the circumstances of the offence and may also take into account any information regarding previous patterns of behaviour relating to this offence and any other relevant information relating to the child or young person”. So it might be argued – as with women and young adults- getting sufficient information to reach the best decision will in practice often mean obtaining a PSR. But to replace the word “essential” with – well nothing- is to my mind a mistake.

The Imposition guideline which set off this unseemly and unwelcome chain of events did not even deal with children. On this revision at least, the Council should think again.