Custodial sentencing

CHAPTER 9 Custodial sentencing The aim of this chapter is to examine the law and practice relating to custodial sentences. Imprisonment involves deprivation of liberty and is the most onerous and intrusive sentence available in this and other European countries. Deprivation of liberty and incarceration in a punitive institution require special justification. To begin that process, it is necessary to understand the practical meaning of custodial sentences. This depends on the various provisions for calculating the proportion of the nominal sentence that the offender will spend in custody, on the conditions in which prisoners are held, and on the terms on which they are later released. The chapter begins with an outline of the state of English prisons. It then considers principles and policies for the use of custodial sentences, assessing the extent to which the principle of restraint, the policy of bifurcation or a blurred approach best characterizes English sentencing. There is then an analysis of the statutory threshold for imposing custody, and also the prevailing approach to long custodial sentences, noting significant changes introduced by the 2003 Act. The chapter concludes with abrief discussion of various groups of prisoners who raise particular issues of principle. The use of incarceration and deprivation of liberty as a punishment raises fun- damental questions of social and penal policy, as well as engaging several individual rights declared by the European Convention on Human Rights. In the context of criminal justice policy, we should note that the size of the prison population is determined, to a considerable extent, by sentencing law and practice; and that both the law and sentencing practice seem to be more strongly influenced by penal policy, political strategy and media pressure than by variations in crime rates. 9.1 The state of the prisons What have been the conditions in English prisons in recent years, and what are they likely to be in the foreseeable future? The brief survey here looks at trends in the prison population, at the prison estate and at recent problems in the prisons. 255 256 Custodial sentencing 9.1.1 The prison population There have been significant changes in the prison population during the last two decades. In 1980 it stood at a little over 42,000; by 1988 it had reached almost 50,000, but it then fell again, to a low of 40,606 in December 1992; from 1993 it rose steeply, reaching 66,000 at the end of 1999, thereafter continuing to rise more slowly to some 75,000 in April 2004 and again in April 2005. It must be borne in mind that prisons do not only hold sentenced offenders, and that the figures for the prison population include prisoners held on remand. However, the steep rise in the prison population since 1993 is almost entirely attributable to an increase in the numbers of sentenced prisoners held. In round figures, some 11,000 of the average number of 43,000 prisoners held in 1993 were on remand, whereas in 2002 the figure was 12,790 out of almost 70,000. Thus, an increasingly high proportion of the prison population – some five-sixths – consists of sentenced offenders, sent to prison by the courts. 9.1.2 The prison estate When an offender is sentenced to custody in England and Wales, there are two administrative but critical decisions to be taken by the Prison Service. The first decision is to place the offender in one of the security classifications, from A (high risk) to D (suitable for open conditions). The security classification of each pris- oner is a ‘continuing responsibility’ of the Prison Service, 1 and so it should be reconsidered from time to time. It is important not only because it determines the restrictiveness of the regime to which the prisoner will be subject, but also because it governs the second decision – the allocation of the prisoner to a particular estab- lishment. There is a list of factors that should be taken into account in this allocation decision, 2 but there is inevitably a significant amount of discretion, often exercised purely on grounds of administrative convenience (i.e. available space). According to their security classification, female offenders are sent to open or closed women’s prisons or, if under 21, to a young offender institution. Male young offenders go to young offender institutions, whereas adult male prisoners may be sent to open or closed prisons, according to their security classification. Prisoners sentenced to 18 months or less may serve the whole sentence in a local prison, if they are not considered suitable for open conditions. Prisoners serving longer sentences are likely to be sent to a ‘training prison’. Regimes differ considerably between local and training prisons, with fewer activities and moretime lockedincellsattheformer. This is partly because local prisons usually hold remand prisoners, whose stay in prison may be relatively short and may involve frequent trips to and from court, and partly because local prisons tend to be overcrowded, with a consequent difficulty of 1 R.v.Home Secretary, ex p. Duggan [1994] 3 All ER 271. 2Livingstone, Owen and Macdonald (2003), p. 147; see their ch. 4 generally on classification and allocation of prisoners. 9.1 The state of the prisons 257 providing adequate supervision, work etc. for all inmates. These observations are taken further in part 9.1.3 below. Sincetheearly1990stherehas been asubstantialexpansionin the prison estate.By building new prisons, extending existing institutions and contracting with private operators, governments have increased the ‘certified normal accommodation’ of prison service establishments from over 40,000 to over 60,000. But the rise in the number of prisoners has continued to outstrip the supply of places, and therefore the building programme has not solved some of the endemic problems of English prisons. 9.1.3 The problems of the prison system 3 If sentences of imprisonment are to be justified, the justifications must extend not simply to depriving an offender of liberty but also to incarcerating the offender in the particular conditions that obtain in the relevant prison system. If England and Wales had a prison system that complied fully with all international standards and with the targets set for the Prison Service itself, custodial sentences would still require strong justification, as indeed the legal framework indicates. But when, as will be demonstrated, those receiving custodial sentences find themselves in the hands of a prison system that consistently falls short of both international standards and its own targets, the burden of justifying a custodial sentence is a heavy one, and the length of any sentence calls for close scrutiny. Under prevailing public service arrangements, several ‘Key Performance Indica- tors’ are set for the Prison Service each year. It is always open to argument whether the targets are the most relevant ones, and whether each one is fair. In 2003–04 the Prison Service reported that it met its targets on reducing the number of escapes, ensuring that over 8,000 prisoners completed offending behaviour programmes, reducing the number of days lost to staff sickness, increasing the proportion of minority ethnic staff, increasing the number of prisoners achieving basic skills awards, ensuring that more prisoners have resettlement arrangements, and ensur- ing the timely arrival of prisoner escorts. 4 However, it also reported that it failed to meet its targets on the rate of positive drug tests, increasing the average number of hours that prisoners spend in purposeful activity, reducing overcrowding, reducing suicides, increasing the numbers completing sex offender treatment programmes, and reducing the number of serious assaults on staff. Recent reports of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons present a similar picture of improved performance in some respects and persisting problems in other areas. Many of the endemic problems stem from the single fact of overcrowding. As the Chief Inspector put it in her 2003–04 report, ‘the levelling off of the prison popula- tion is, in reality, the difference between a manageable crisis and an unmanageable one’. 5 Some establishments have been operating at well over their certified normal 3For fuller discussion, see Cavadino and Dignan (2002), chs. 6, 7 and 8, and Morgan (2002). 4Prison Service (2004), pp. 10–11. 5 HMCI Prisons (2004), p. 7. 258 Custodial sentencing accommodation for several years, with a consequent strain on officers, prisoners and the regime itself. Even the figure of ‘certified normal accommodation’ for prison establishments as a whole cannot be relied upon, since at any one time there may be empty accommodation in some regions or in some types of establishment (e.g. open prisons) while other establishments are over-full. In 2003–04 the Chief Inspector found Leeds prison holding 1250 prisoners, some 60 per cent above its certified normal accommodation, and one wing in Cardiff prison had a certified normal accommodation of 96 but was holding 184 prisoners. 6 Thus the overcrowding of cells constructed for one person remains a feature of local prisons up and down the country, with the result that many of their inmates – some on short sentences, many on remand – have to submit to unsatisfactory conditions. In the worst of our overcrowded local prisons, prisoners may spend 23 hours a day in a shared cell with an unscreened toilet. The best locals are working hard to sustain standards of humanity and respect; but even they are failing to deliver the activity and resettlement opportunities that prisoners need if society is to be protected from reoffending. 7 The European Committeeforthe Prevention of Torture,Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CPT) visited four prisons in England and Wales in 2001:itobserved that ‘much remains to be done to achieve the objective of holding all prisoners in “a safe, decent and healthy environment”’, 8 and specifically criticized the conditions under which some inmates were held two to a cell measuring 8.5 metres square or less, sometimes without properly partitioned lavatories. 9 The reasons for the persistent overcrowding seem to involve a complex mixture of geographical demands, an excess of accommodation in open institutions, the need to close wings of some prisons in order to refurbish them, and, of course, the fact that the prison building programme has not kept pace with the number of people sent into custody. The effects of overcrowding are felt in a variety of ways, and the implications are well documented. Thus in his examination of the causes of the disturbance at Strangeways Prison, Manchester, in 1990, Lord Woolf found that A large proportion of the inmates were sympathetic to the instigators of the disturbance and antagonistictowards thePrison Service becauseof the conditionsin which theywere housed at the time at Strangeways .Astheinmates repeatedly told the Inquiry, if they were treated like animals they would behave like animals. The prison was overcrowded, and the inmates provided with insufficient activities and association. 10 The effect of overcrowding on inmate activity is obvious and troubling. In her 2003–04 report the Chief Inspector commented that ‘no local prison that we inspected was able to offer enough proper work and training for its population’. The 6HMCIPrisons (2004), p. 44. 7 HMCI Prisons (2003), p. 3. 8 CPT (2001), p. 19. 9 CPT (2001), p. 23; see also p. 45. 10 Woolf (1991), para. 3.432. 9.1 The state of the prisons 259 reasons included lack of funding, and lack of space and infrastructure. ‘Two-thirds of prisoners at Brixton, and a third at Lincoln, had no work at all; and many of the remainder were under-occupied in routine domestic tasks.’ 11 The CPT commented adversely on the poor provision of constructive activities for prisoners in its 2001 report, 12 and the Chief Inspector’s observations show that this issue has still not been tackled adequately. Moreover, it is not solely a problem in local prisons: the Chief Inspector found that the provision of work and education in training prisons was far better than in local prisons, but added that ‘often provision could not match demand, and too many prisoners were unemployed, or employed in mundane tasks that brought no qualifications’. 13 The Prison Service target was ‘to ensure that pris- oners spend on average at least 24 hours per week engaged in purposeful activity’, and the out-turn was 23.2 hours. 14 A careful reading of the Chief Inspector’s reports demonstrates what a low target this is – taking in both local and training prisons – and how contestable the definition of ‘purposeful activity’ may be. The Prison Service reported that it exceeded its target of ensuring the comple- tion by prisoners of offending behaviour programmes in 2003–04, and fell a little short of its target for sex offender treatment programmes. There has been much emphasis on these courses in recent years as a major step towards reducing re- offending among released prisoners. However, the Prison Service admits that ‘deliv- ery [of these programmes] on a large scale presents many challenges’, and it refers to the ‘disappointing evaluation’ of two such programmes. The Prison Service is now said to be assessing ‘what works with whom in order to optimise the impact of programmes’. 15 Thus whether a numerical target, with similar courses for virtually all prisoners, is the right approach needs to be reconsidered. In its 2001 report the CPT commented adversely on the amount of exercise time made available to inmates in the prisons it visited: it pointed out that the relevant Prison Rule is worded flexibly, whereas ‘the basic requirement of at least one hour of outdoor exercise per day is a fundamental safeguard for prisoners’, and recom- mended that the rule should be amended. 16 It was this kind of shortcoming, allied to the overcrowding and poor sanitation arrangements, that led the CPT to classify the conditions in English prisons as ‘inhuman and degrading’ on its first visit in 1992. 17 We have seen that the Chief Inspector has recently commented adversely on the fact that some inmates of local prisons still spend 23 hours per day in their cells. 18 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 now requires all public authori- ties, including the Prison Service, to ensure that their activities comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Of particular importance is Article 3, 11 HMCI Prisons (2004), p. 44. 12 CPT (2001), p. 45. 13 HMCI Prisons (2004), p. 46 (giving details of training prisons with insufficient activity). On p. 8 it is said that only 5 of the 18 training prisons inspected wereproviding sufficient work and education. Cf. HMCI Prisons (1997), p. 11, for similar comments some years earlier. 14 Prison Service (2004), p. 10. 15 Prison Service (2004), pp. 31–2. 16 CPT (2001), pp. 25, 45. 17 CPT (1992). 18 See n. 7 above, and accompanying text. 260 Custodial sentencing which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 3 itself does not set out the standards to be attained, but the European Minimum Standards do so, and the Strasbourg Court (and therefore, one surmises, the courts of this country) would be expected to refer to those standards when considering issues of inhuman or degrading treatment. The only attempt by an individual prisoner to go to Strasbourg to establish a violation of Article 3 through British prison conditions was declared inadmissible by the European Commission in 1993: 19 this was not a strong case on the basis of overcrowding, since the applicant was in solitary confinement at the time of his application and therefore not suffering the effects of overcrowding. However, the Scots courts have found a violation of Article 3 amounting to degrading treatment where a prisoner was held in a small cell with another prisoner for 20 hours a day, with slopping out, one hour’s walking exercise per day and little other recreation. 20 English prisons do not have slopping out, but they do have toilets in cells and sometimes keep prisoners locked in for more than 20 hours per day. 9.2 The use of imprisonment Before examining the law relating to custodial sentencing, it is instructive to consider the evidence on the use of imprisonment by the courts of England and Wales. How does the overall imprisonment rate relate to that of other similar countries? What kinds of offender are imprisoned, and for how long, in English prisons? 9.2.1 International comparisons The traditional way of comparing the relative severity of different sentencing sys- tems has been to refer to the Council of Europe’s table of prisoners per 100,000 of population in various European countries, which has consistently shown the United Kingdom at or around the top in recent years. Chris Nuttall and Ken Pease have argued strongly that this table is useless as a basis for sensible comparisons: National differences thus calculated are impossible to interpret. They could be attributed, inter alia,tocountry differences in age profile, crime rates, clearance rates, conviction rates, judicial severity, parole differences, or any combination of these or other factors. 21 These are important points. At present there is no method of international comparison that avoids even most of the weaknesses of the Council of Europe data. Certainly the International Bar Association’s survey was no better: it did obtain indications from ‘representative legal practitioners’ in many countries of the 19 Delazarus v. United Kingdom,App No 17525/1990. 20 Napier v. Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHRR 881; the implications of the decision are discussed by Lawson and Mukherjee (2004). 21 Nuttall and Pease (1994), p. 316. 9.2 The use of imprisonment 261 sentence range appropriate to certain test cases, but there is no reason to suppose that the sentencers in all or any of the participating countries were typical, or had recourse to objective statistics in order to confirm their indicated sentences. 22 The only way of resolving the question would be to determine whether, for certain given offences, an English court would be more likely to imprison, or likely to imprison for longer, than courts in other countries with somewhat similar demographic features. It is unlikely that this question could be resolved by resort to official statistics, since they are not sufficiently refined to draw the necessary distinctions among the types of offender coming before the courts. A proper inquiry would have to take account of differences in legal definition, the circumstances of offences, the previous record of the offender and other aggravating and mitigating factors. It is nonetheless evident that international comparisons consistently suggest that some countries, particularly those in Scandinavia, succeed in using custody distinctly more sparingly. This raises the question whether English sentencing levels might be lowered without adverse consequences for the crime rate or, put another way, for the risk of victimization. This might be established if it were shown that two countries with similar demographic features had different rates of punitiveness in sentencing, measured by the relative uses of imprisonment for crimes of a similar nature (i.e. a similar ‘crime-mix’). Such calculations are difficult to undertake if all proper precautions are taken, but a few pointers can be derived from the latest international comparisons published by the Home Office. Taking figures for 2002– 03, it records that England and Wales had the second highest imprisonment rate among European Union countries, at 141 per 100,000, followed by Spain (138) and Portugal (137). Countries with which the UK is often compared economically and socially were using imprisonment at somewhat lower rates (e.g. France 93, Germany 98). 23 The general trend in almost all countries has been upwards. This is, however, a crude measure that is open to the strictures of Nuttall and Pease, cited above. The 33 per cent increase in the English prison population between 1992 and 1997 was similar to that in South Africa, Russia and the United States (three of the more punitive jurisdictions in the world), but below the 50 per cent rises in the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic. The proportion of the English prison population serving sentences below 12 months in 1997 was 15 per cent, well below that in France (29 per cent), Sweden (36 per cent), the Netherlands (37 per cent) and Norway (59 per cent), although in Portugal the proportion was only 5percent. Canitbeargued that more and longer prison sentences are effective in deterring criminals from offending and reoffending? One attempt to link imprisonment rates to crime rates is that of David Farrington and Patrick Langan. 24 Their argument, briefly put, is that a comparison of incarceration rates in the United States and in England and Wales between 1981 and 1986–7 shows two things. First, it shows that 22 Discussed by Pease (1994), pp. 121–3. 23 Walmsley (2003). 24 Farrington and Langan (1992). 262 Custodial sentencing the risk of conviction and imprisonment for property crimes in England declined significantly during this period, although the same risk did not decrease for crimes of violence, and the risk increased for both types of crime in the United States. Second, it shows that recorded property crimes increased significantly in England and Wales during that period, and recorded violent crimes increased only modestly, whereas in the United States recorded crime in both categories fell markedly. The analysis is constructed with care, as one would expect, but the conclusions are necessarily tentative and partial. The authors appear to wish to raise the possibility, merely, that the two trends may be connected: that crime rates are responsive to the risk of custody, so that a high-custody policy may be crime-preventive. In order to substantiate this, however, a much fuller and deeper analysis would be needed. The authors recognize that, even allowing for the fact that the comparison was confined to two countries at only two points of time, they have not investigated the machinery by which any supposed deterrent or incapacitative effect might operate. If the claim is that ‘prison works’ through deterring potential offenders, it would have to be found, for example, that potential property offenders in England in the early 1980s were aware of the declining risk of conviction and imprisonment and that this affected their decision-making. In fact, what the Farrington and Langan studies show is that there is a significant link between the certainty of punishment and offending rates, but not between the severity of punishment and offending rates. 25 If the claim is that ‘prison works’ through incapacitating a considerable number of offenders, it is important to examine that claim in the context of the fact that only some 3 per cent of offenders in any one year go to court, and an even smaller percentage go to prison. In the absence of a clear causal link, it is best to keep faith with the reports from the US National Academy of Sciences which argue that any incapacitative effects are likely to be marginal. What about the incapacitative effect of holding more offenders in English pris- ons? The figures are inevitably dominated by high-volume offences such as theft rather than the offences from which people most want protection. 26 Some would argue that the cause-and-effect claim could be made quite simply by looking at the decline in recorded crime: have we not witnessed a plain demonstration of the hydraulic effect, with more people in prison resulting in less crime in society? Between 1997 and 2002 the sentenced prison population increased from 48,412 to 71,498; 27 between 1997 and 2002 the British Crime Survey showed a 25 per cent fall in crimes committed, although that decrease has slowed in recent years. 28 Does this not show that the high imprisonment policy has worked? No: as suggested above, the 25 See the searching discussion of the Farrington-Langan studies by von Hirsch et al. (1999), pp. 25–8. 26 The Halliday report (2001,p.130) stated that around 10,000 more prisoners would be needed to reduce the incidence of crime by 1 per cent. The Carter review (2003,p.16) concluded that the increase in the prison population since 1997 might have reduced crime by 5 per cent, adding: ‘the fall in the number of young people over the same period is estimated to have reduced crime by a similar amount’. 27 Prison Service (2003). In early 2005 the prison population exceeded 75,000. 28 Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/03, p. 26 and Table 3.01. 9.2 The use of imprisonment 263 Tab le 12. Sentenced prison population Males Females Offence 1982 1992 2002 1982 1992 2002 Rape 561 1,582 2,918 1 2 5 Burglary 10,855 5,349 8,922 82 51 230 Robbery 2,504 4,174 7,197 50 56 310 Theft etc. 7,913 3,710 4,282 402 243 462 Drugs 905 2,899 8,724 90 259 1,331 Sentenced total 35,011 34,389 53,967 989 1,175 3,339 Source: Based on Prison Statistics 2002, Table 1.6. simple inference cannot be drawn. 29 There is probably a small incapacitation effect, but the crime rate began to decline before the steep rise in imprisonment, there has also been a decline in the number of young people in society (the most crime-prone age group), and international comparisons show declines in crime rates in recent years in countries where the use of imprisonment has not escalated. 30 9.2.2 The courts and custodial sentencing Trends in custodial sentencing have an impact on the prison population in two ways – in terms of the number of custodial sentences handed down by the courts, and in terms of the length of those sentences. In addition, as elaborated in part 9.5 below, the provisions for early release of prisoners affect the numbers in prison. The composition of the sentenced prison population has changed markedly in the last two decades. As the figures in Table 12 demonstrate, in 1982 and in 1992 the total numbers were the same but there had been significant shifts away from persons sentenced for burglary or for theft towards people imprisoned for serious sexual offences and drugs offences. For males, the 2002 figures show that the numbers serving prison sentences for burglary and for theft remain below the 1982 levels, but that there have been significant increases in every other group. In 2002 there were almost six times as many rapists and nine times as many drug offenders in prison as 20 years earlier. Between 1992 and 2002 there was a more than 50 per cent rise in the male sentenced prison population, with drug offenders, burglars and robbers showing particularly high rates of increase. The female sentenced prison population almost trebled between 1992 and 2002, with the same three groups of offenders (drugs, burglars and robbers) leading the way. The steep increases between 1992 and 2002 reflect both a proportionately higher use of imprisonment by the Crown Court and by magistrates’ courts, and a tendency to give longer sentences, particularly in the Crown Court. Thus the percentage 29 See nn. 21–23 above. 30 Tonry (2004), ch. 3. 264 Custodial sentencing Tab le 13. Prison population by length of sentence Males Females Sentence length 1992 2002 1992 2002 Up to6months 3,465 5,139 156 425 6+ to 12 months 3,544 3,763 145 327 1+ to3years 11,567 14,656 368 1,007 3+ to5years 5,822 13,040 186 765 5+ to 10 years 5,710 9,773 202 539 10+ years 1,377 2,614 22 111 Life 2,904 4,982 96 165 Total 34,389 53,967 1,175 3,339 Source: Based on Prison Statistics 2002, Table 1.6. of adults aged 21 and over sent to prison by magistrates’ courts increased from 5per cent in 1992 to 18 per cent in 2002, perhaps reflecting the more serious nature of the cases sentenced, 31 and for the Crown Court the rise was from 47 to 66 per cent. For the same group, average sentences remain about the same in magistrates’ courts (2.5 months in 2002), but average sentences in the Crown Court are now one-third longer, having increased from 21.1 months in 1992 to 27.8 months in 2002. 32 The changing profile of the prison population can be seen from Table 13,which shows a particularly sharp rise in medium- and long-term prisoners, both males and females. The numbers of female prisoners in each category have doubled and sometimes trebled. For males there was also a significant (50 per cent) increase in those serving sentences of up to six months. However, if we focus on the sentencing practices of the courts by considering receptionsinto prison (rather than the average population), the figures show that by far the largest increase between 1991 and 2001 was in offenders sentenced to less than 12 months (increased by a factor of one- and-a-half). 33 One suggestion is that significant numbers of ‘those who previously might have been given a community penalty are now serving short prison sentences’, which might explain why there has been such an increase in prisoners serving up to six months, why the average length of magistrates’ sentences has not increased, and why the average increase in Crown Court sentence length is less than might have been expected. 34 Tab le 13 also shows that the numbers serving over six months and up to three years have increased modestly; but it is the number of prisoners sentenced to three years or longer who have swelled the prison population – more 31 Although the proportionate use of custody by magistrates’ courts for driving while disqualified, a summary offence, rose from 18 per cent in 1991 to 47 per cent in 2001, which suggests a change of policy rather than a change in clientele: Hough et al. (2003), p. 13. 32 Criminal Statistics 2002,ch.4. 33 See Hough et al. (2003), p. 14. 34 Hough et al. (2003), p. 13. [...]... 272 Custodial sentencing court concludes that the case is too serious for either of those measures is a custodial sentence lawful How will the courts deal with this provision? Under the 1991 Act the Court of Appeal initially adopted the test of whether ‘right-thinking members of the public, knowing all the facts, [would] feel that justice had not been done by the passing of any sentence other than a custodial. .. remains to be tested 9.3.1 Justifying restraint in the use of custody The true principle of restraint in the use of custody is one which argues for the use of non -custodial sentences instead of custodial ones, and which argues for shorter custodial sentences instead of longer ones The UN declaration (above), which refers to imprisonment as a sanction of last resort, is an inferior formulation because... The Council of Europe has likewise declared a policy of encouraging the use of non -custodial sentences and reserving custodial sentences for the most serious types of offence.36 However, the international survey by Dirk van Zyl Smit and Frieder D¨ nkel demonstrates the u continuing centrality of imprisonment to the sentencing policy of most nations: The sentence of imprisonment remains the backbone... short custodial sentences in Howells (1999), Lord Bingham CJ recognized the force of these and other criticisms: it cannot be said that the ‘right-thinking members of the public’ test is very helpful, since the sentencing court has no means of ascertaining the views of right-thinking members of the public and inevitably attributes to such right-thinking members its own views In the end, the sentencing. .. when interpreting the study by Davies and Tyrer (2003), which suggests more punitive attitudes but leaves mitigating factors largely out of account 273 274 Custodial sentencing or breaches that appeared to dominate For cases resulting in a non -custodial disposal, a whole range of mitigating factors seemed capable of swaying the decision – remorse, guilty plea, motivation to address underlying personal... of the offender, making the sentencing process ‘highly subjective’.84 In the face of findings such as these, there is a considerable challenge for sentencing guidelines Efforts have been made in some recent guidelines to give some indications about the positioning of the custody threshold,85 but a recent judgment from the Court of Appeal – not based on proposals from the Sentencing Advisory Panel or... the court must order the custodial term to take effect, either in whole or in part, unless it concludes that it would be unjust to do so, in which case there are powers to amend the order in various ways The Sentencing Guidelines Council has issued a guideline that encompasses the suspended sentence It is important to recall that the suspended sentence has been part of English sentencing law since 1967,... appropriate.89 88 For this reason the details are discussed in ch 10.6 below 89 SGC, New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2004), para 2.2.14 275 276 Custodial sentencing Another criticism of the suspended sentence has been its use in cases where an immediate custodial sentence would not be justified As Bottoms showed, ever since its introduction there has been a conflict between the official aim of the suspended... whose offences (and record) are serious enough to justify a custodial sentence, but not so serious that longer prison sentences would be justified A more effective recipe for failure could hardly be conceived.101 Halliday’s response to the various problems of short custodial terms was to propose a new sentence of ‘custody plus’, made up of a custodial portion and a period of supervision (with conditions)... with Appendix 6 Halliday (2001), para 3.1 102 Halliday (2001), para 3.19 Home Office (2002a), paras 5.22 – 5.26 The sentencing powers of magistrates will be increased to 12 months for one offence when s 154 of the 2003 Act is brought into force, probably in autumn 2006 279 280 Custodial sentencing otherwise disadvantaged) The question is whether there are effective interventions for this group – a question . courts and custodial sentencing Trends in custodial sentencing have an impact on the prison population in two ways – in terms of the number of custodial. CHAPTER 9 Custodial sentencing The aim of this chapter is to examine the law and practice relating to custodial sentences. Imprisonment