SENTENCING-Resource sheet

Types of Questions

• Question on Aims of Sentencing/ types of sentencing

1) The closing of the prison gates behind a defendant should be the last resort. Consider critically
the process of sentencing, evaluating the options available to the courts.

INTRODUCTION: Once a defendant has been convicted, the judge or the magistrates must
decide on a suitable sentence. Judge and magistrates have a discretion as far as sentencing is
concerned subject to statutory restrictions imposed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the
Power of Criminal Courts( Sentencing) Act 2000. Judges may choose between custodial
sentences, fines, community orders and discharges. They will consider the guidelines published
by the sentencing council as well as secondary tariff principles such as mitigating and
aggravating factors. Age of the offender is important and perhaps the most important
consideration is the aim of sentencing that a particular judge prioritizes.
Comment/link to the question: Some judges are of the opinion that custodial sentences have
long term disruptive effects and are a heavy burden on the criminal justice system. Thus, more
recently, there has been an emphasis on other sentences which prioritize reform and
rehabilitation.

2nd para-
Define custodial sentence as a type of sentence option to the judge ( defined in s 76 of the
PCCSA 2000 as a sentence of imprisonment or a suspended sentence-define this as well).

For a young offender, this is imprisonment in a young offender’s institution. Also outline the
detention and training order or detention under Her Majestys pleasure/ detention for serious
crimes very briefly as custodial options for young offenders.

Write about mandatory sentences such as life imprisonment for murder which contribute to the
aim of protection of the public/incapacitation and denunciation( s 142 CJA 2000). It also reflects
the aim of retribution and allows society to seek revenge from the offender. In addition, a
custodial sentence is suitable as it could arguably achieve deterrence( individual and general)
since it is a tougher penalty.

Write the advantages of custodial as it seen as effective in preventing reoffending. Nonetheless,

this ignores the fact that once the offender is released, they can easily succumb to old
temptations-often with new resolve since in prison they have come across and learnt new
techniques. List all disadvantages-expense 1.9 billion of tax payers money. Long term disruptive
effects-social stigma for the family. Counter- productive. Not as suitable for young offenders
who may be a product of their own upbringing and do not know better- the conditions in the
Feltham Young Offenders Institution are dismal.
Thus, it is seen as a means of last resort and custodial sentences are restricted by statute. Write
about s 152 CJA and s 153 CJA. Custodial sentences are subject to these restrictions and cannot
be imposed for offences for which a fine or community order would suffice. Also a shortest
possible sentence must be imposed.

Comment/link- In light of the above arguments, these restrictions are justified.

3rd para-
Explore fines( income into the system). This is the first sentence that the judge considers and is
suitable for most offences except murder. It is to be noted that a fine is not an ideal sentence
since it is not individualized to cater to the individual offender’s financial circumstances. Thus, it
does not achieve retribution in the strictest sense of the word. In addition, there is a problem of
enforcement which is mitigated to a certain extent by the new framework of fine enforcement(
elaborate on this) However, the problem is that many people are in prison for failing to pay a
fine and thus ultimately, fines do not really prevent prison over-crowding.

Write about Community orders with the advantages and disadvantages and the aim of
sentencing reflected in the community( s 177 CJA) and Youth Rehabilitation order- reform and
rehabilitation. Write about how reform and rehabilitation is often seen as a more effective aim(
advantages particularly for young offenders) but then community orders are also seen as soft
options-letting the offender of the hook. This also achieves restorative justice by allowing them
to make reparation to society as a whole.
Comment/link-especially for less serious crimes and for young offenders in particular, it is a
more suitable option than a custodial sentence which as outlined above is unlikely to achieve
deterrence or prevent re offending.

4th para- A discharge for both adult and young offenders- A conviction is essential to achieve
denunciation/societys disapproval -however, the offender may be let go because sometimes
they are morally blameless
youth cautions/warnings/reprimands. Referral orders may be outlined as furthering the aim of
reform/rehabilitation. You may write about civil proceedings such as child safety order-anti
social order- parenting order available for young offenders. Any other miscellaneous sentences
can be mentioned as well.
Comment/link-custodial sentences are not suitable for very young offenders who should not be
exposed to criminal justice system and can be dealt with under civil law.

5th para-Write about how all the sentences outlined above can be subject to secondary tariff
principles-mitigating and aggravating factors and the judge will most likely keep in mind the
seriousness of the offence/culpability. S 144, s 143 and s 166 CJA may be mentioned and
evaluated.
 Comment/link: These factors help ensure that sentences are more individualized. The primary
sentencing principles ensure consistency but secondary principles ensure fairness and flexibility.

Conclusion-custodial is seen as punitive and a matter of last resort for the most serious
offences- This sentence is without doubt essential in the criminal justice system for indictable
offences. However, for less serious offences, other sentences are more effective.

2) The fight against crime is being undermined by judges and magistrates who fail to ensure that
tough penalties set down in law are imposed in the courts. To what extent do you think that
deterrence should play a part in the sentencing process? Are there other considerations that the
court should bear in mind when arriving at a sentence?

A wide discretion is conferred upon the judges and magistrates that they may use when imposing a
sentence. However, to ensure consistency in sentencing, they must adhere to statutory restrictions
as well as the tariff and guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Although, the initial tariff is
set by the Council, the judge will also bear in mind the aims of sentencing and various secondary
tariff principles to arrive at his decision. Deterrence is an important principle of sentencing, but
needs to be balanced against other aims and factors before the imposition of a sentence.

The aims of sentencing are listed in s 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. On behalf of the victim
and society, a judge may seek revenge from the offender by achieving retribution and imposing a
punishment which is proportionate to the offence-“ an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life
for a life.’ Retribution is one of the most effective aims of sentencing since it promotes consistency
in the sentencing process and focuses on the fact that the offender has committed a crime and
tougher penalties should be imposed for more serious crimes. To achieve retribution, the judge or
magistrate can impose custodial sentences for the most serious offences ( s152 CJA) and will impose
the shortest possible sentence which is commensurate with the offence( s153 CJA).
Fines/community orders are imposed for less serious offences. Any sentence which achieves
retribution also achieves denunciation as sentences can vary depending on how morally culpable
the defendant is and the degree to which society disapproves of the offenders conduct. However, if
the judge prioritizes retribution, the sentence is less individualized since the judge would in all
likelihood uphold the tariff set by the sentencing council. This might not be useful in the case of
young offenders who are often seen as the product of their own upbringing and in dire need for
education and rehabilitation. With retribution, ‘judicial punishment can never be used as a means
to promote some good for the offender’-(Kant in the Metaphysical Elements of Justice). Therefore,
other aims of sentencing are also to be kept in mind such as deterrence, protection of the public and
most importantly reform and rehabilitation

For most serious offences, the judge prioritizes deterrence, incapacitation and the protection of
public. In such cases, the judge is likely to impose an exemplary custodial sentence which is a
tougher penalty than what is deserved. Whilst, this makes the offender incapable of re offending
and is meant to promote individual deterrence and ensure that the individual does not reoffend, it is
an expensive way of dealing with crime and is often counter-productive. General deterrence aims
to prevent other potential offenders from committing crime. Perhaps, out of all the above principles
of sentencing, prioritizing deterrence, is least effective. Individual deterrence becomes weaker every
time a person is punished. Moreover, general deterrence is also counter-productive since it assumes
that offenders are rational and think about the consequences about their actions before offending.
In reality, offenders are reckless, impulsive and often under the influence of alcohol. Deterrence also
relies on publicity and since people often remain unconcerned about sentences being inflicted on
others, the value of deterrence is compromised. The judge may impose punitive sentences to
achieve educative deterrence especially in cases of driving offences. However, this is also not very
effective since such offences are committed by older people for whom educative deterrence is
unlikely to have any impact. Therefore, it is unrealistic to construct sentencing arrangements on the
principle of deterrence. It is evident that the aims of retribution and deterrence are conflicting since
deterrence requires the judge to impose harsher sentences which may not be proportionate to the
offence. In the light of the arguments made, it can be stated that the judge should prioritize
retribution as opposed to deterrence. This will ensure certainty in the law since like cases would be
decided alike.

Furthermore, other principles of sentencing such as reform and rehabilitation are often taken into
account by the judge, particularly for younger offenders. This is a forward looking aim which is much
more individualized and necessitates a sentence which would help prevent re offending by
addressing issues such as alcoholism/drug addiction through education and training. Community
orders for adults( s177 CJA) and Youth Rehabilitation Orders are seen as very effective in this regard
since these sentences reduce prison over-crowding whilst also ensuring that the offender may
transition back into society without having to go through the long term disruptive effects of prison.
For young offenders, sentences such as a detention and training order ( s 100 PCC(S)A 2000), helps
focus on providing children with training in the national curriculum keeping in mind that they have
their whole lives ahead of them. Thus, in furtherance to s142A of the CJA 2003, this ensures the
welfare of the young offender and is seen as more effective than the punitive nature of sentences
promoting deterrence. Nonetheless, often a time, the emphasis on reform and rehabilitation
backfires because offenders succumb to old temptations when they are faced with empty pockets
and unemployment. This necessitates a reform of society rather than the offender himself and is an
unattainable ideal in the short run.

The judge may want to achieve restorative justice by focusing on reparation and compensating the
victim and the society as a whole for the harm caused. This can be achieved through compensation
orders to the victim as well as community orders. It is pioneered for young offenders and has been
surprising successful since it allows the victim to get an apology and de mystifies the offence for
them. Besides the aims of sentencing, the judges will also take into account mitigating factors such
as the age of the offender and illness( s 166 CJA 2003) and aggravating factors such previous
convictions, character of the offender( s 143 CJA 2003). All in all, the nature and seriousness of the
offence is often a decisive factor which determines the sentence.
 In conclusion, it is to be emphasized that exemplary/punitive sentences which reflect the aim of
deterrence are unlikely to effective since inflicting tougher penalties than what are deserved in the
form of custodial sentences is an unnecessary burden on tax payers. The Offenders Rehabilitation
Act 2014 is a step in the right direction as it prioritizes reform and rehabilitation. None of the aims of
sentencing outlined above can lead to the eradication of crime. However, rehabilitation and
reparation schemes help contribute to restorative and corrective justice by addressing the needs of
the offender as well as society to a certain extent. Despite the emphasis on reform and
rehabilitation, there are some offences such as murder which merit a custodial sentence and a
priority on incapacitation, deterrence and retribution.

3) Retribution is an outmoded consideration in sentencing an offender, the emphasis should be on

reform and rehabilitation. Considering the range of sentences available to the courts, discuss
the extent to which you agree or disagree with this statement.
4) Deterrence commonly appears to the main aim in adult sentencing. Describe the sentences
available for adult offenders. Discuss the extent to which deterrence is the most appropriate
aim.
5) Both custodial and non custodial sentences are available to courts when dealing with an adult
offender. Consider the extent each of these sentencing options achieves the aims of sentencing
set out in CJA 2003.
6) Assess how far the sentences available to the court for adult offenders reflect the various aims
of sentencing.
7) Evaluate the extent to which the aims of sentencing are effective in reducing re-offending
among young offenders. [25]
8) The main aims of sentencing should be denunciation of and retribution for the crime.
Considering the range of aims of sentencing, to what extent do you agree with this statement?
9) Sentences imposed on young offenders should focus on rehabilitation. Explain the various aims
of sentencing and discuss how they might be applied when sentencing young offenders.

Adult offenders v Young offenders

1) Sentencing principles should vary according to the age of the offender. To what extent do you
agree with this statement? Explain your reasons.

Judges in the Crown Court as well as the magistrates in the Magistrates court have the role to impose a
sentence once a defendant is convicted. Both judges and magistrates have a wide discretion to impose
the sentence they consider fit subject to certain restrictions set by Parliament. Although the judge must
adhere to the tariff set by the Sentencing council, he/she will also consider the aims/principles of
sentencing in order to decide what sentence to impose. The sentence a judge imposes depends on
which aim the judge prioritizes and their priorities may vary depending on the age of the offender.
Traditionally, an excuse culture has been observed in the sentencing of young offenders. This is justified
to a certain extent given their lack of maturity and understanding.

S 142 of the CJA 2003 lays down the purposes of sentencing when dealing with an adult offender. The
main principles that the judges must consider when deciding their sentences include retribution and
punishment of offenders, reduction of crime through deterrence, reform and rehabilitation of offenders,
the incapacitation and protection of the public and the making of reparation to the victim. In some
instances, a judge may impose a custodial sentence for an adult defined in s 76 of the PCCSA 2000 as a
sentence of imprisonment or a suspended sentence. This is possible where the judge considers that the
offence is so serious that a fine or community order would not be just (s 152 CJA 2003). In such a
situation, the sentencing principles that the judge will give priority to is retribution, deterrence,
incapacitation and the protection of the public. It is justified to prioritize these aims of sentencing in
such a situation so that the punishment is commensurate and proportionate to the offence. The idea is
that society must express their disapproval for such morally unacceptable behavior and general
deterrence is important in such a case to prevent further criminal activity. It is justified that society
seeks revenge-“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. On the other hand, if the defendant is too old or
too young, then that might operate as a mitigating factor for which a defendant is to be punished less
severely ( s 166 CJA 2003). Age is a factor which justifies the imposition of a more lenient sentence. If
the defendant is too old, then arguably he/ she can easily be deterred from crime through the
imposition of a community order or through a shorter custodial sentence. This community order may
have a curfew requirement which can be monitored through electronic tagging. In this way, the offender
may spend the remainder of his life with his family, whilst being a part of the community. It is possible
that the judge will not consider the principle of retribution in this case and be satisfied that all the other
aims of sentencing such as deterrence is satisfied.

On the other hand, the aims of sentencing which are to be prioritized vary for young offenders. They are
treated differently by the judges due to the belief that children are less responsible for their actions than
adults. Therefore, the judges tend to prioritize reform and rehabilitation for young offenders. It is
believed that children are a product of their upbringing and their problems are to be treated rather than
punished. The Labour government in 1967 took the view that delinquency was a result of deprivation
and so children should be handed over to social services rather than into some form of custody.
Therefore, it is preferred that children be subject to Youth Rehabilitation Orders instead of custodial
sentences. The idea is that they can be educated and trained such that they become productive
members of society. Custodial units for young offenders have been described as ‘universities of crime’
and therefore it is best that they are not sent there. The Youth Rehabilitation Order may comprise of a
variety of requirements such as an unpaid work requirement for 16/17 year olds, a prohibited activity
requirement, a supervision requirement, a programme requirement and an education requirement. The
Youth Rehabilitation Order is arguably a more effective way to achieve the aim of deterrence as well
since the legal system gets to the root cause of the problem and remedies the problem. Therefore if the
judge prioritizes reform and rehabilitation, he will order either the Youth rehabilitation Order or the
detention and Training Order ( s100 PCC(s)A 2000). Under this order, the offender may serve half of his
sentence in custody and the other half in the community. If he is placed in a custodial unit, he is offered
educational and training programmes based on the national curriculum. He will be given regular tuition
in social skills and be able to develop interests to occupy leisure time. To a certain extent, it is justified to
adopt sentencing principles which are somewhat more lenient since the youth is the future of the nation
and if the system invests in them and emphasizes in their reform, crime rates may decline in the future.

Moreover, the approach taken for very young offenders is also different. A local authority in such a case
may commence civil proceedings for a child safety order which may require children under the age of 10
to be home at certain times. The aim of this is to divert children below the age of 10 from behaviour
that would bring them in conflict with criminal law. The child will be put under the supervision of a social
worker for upto 3 month. A parenting order may also help achieve this aim. The judge must consider
that very young children cannot be held criminally responsible and the aims which are to be prioritized
should be somewhat different. A referral order may also be imposed where the offender is referred to a
youth justice panel who will design a programme of behaviour to be set out in a Youth offender
contract. This diversion of very young children from a criminal prosecution is justified as it prioritizes the
welfare of the offender in furtherance to s 142 A CJA 2003.

However, since 1982, the philosophy of the legislation has been that the sentencing of young offenders
should be based on the offence committed rather than their personal or social circumstances and their
chance for reform. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that when sentencing a young
offender, the courts must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent
reoffending, the welfare of the offender and the purposes of sentencing which include punishment,
reform and rehabilitation, protection of public and reparation. It is evident that the aims of sentencing
for a young offender in recent statutes are not much different than that of the adult offender. A change
in approach occurred after the James Bulger case and it seems like the government was in favour of
reversing the ‘excuse culture’ that had developed within the youth justice system. In 1998 the
Government abolished the principle of doli incapax. This was the presumption in law that
children aged under 14 did not know the difference between right and wrong and were therefore
not capable of committing an offence.It can thus be argued that children between the ages of 10 and
17 do understand the consequences of their actions and the sentencing practice of judges should reflect
that. Reform and Rehabilitation as an aim for sentencing is not as effective since most crime is
committed because of societal conditions such as unemployment.

In conclusion, age is a relevant factor for the imposition of an offence. The sentencing practices of
judges vary depending on whether the offender is an adult, under 18, under 16 or under 10. This varying
approach is justified to a certain extent. However, the more recent approach is to punish offenders not
based on their age, but on their culpability and the seriousness of the offence.
 2) Frank aged 16 and Max aged 20 have both pleaded guilty to robbery before the Crown Court at
Barchester. Neither has previous convictions but the circumstances of the robbery were serious.

Examine the sentencing options open to the judge and explain the principles that the judge should
consider before passing sentence.

Once a defendant is convicted at the Crown Court, it is up to the judge to impose a suitable sentence.
Since both Frank and Max have pleaded guilty, they would not have a full trial. Rather the circuit judge
in the Crown Court will immediately proceed to sentence them. There are a range of sentences available
to the judge and the judge would take into consideration many factors before making a decision. The
judge will always consider the aims of sentencing before reaching a decision. In addition, there are a
number of mitigating and aggravating factors laid down in statute which the judge will consider. Age is a
relevant factor and both the defendants will be treated differently due to the difference in their age.

Max is 20 years old and therefore the range of sentences which are available to the judge for adults will
be considered. There are mainly four types of sentences: fines, custodial sentences, community orders
and discharges. The judge in this case would briefly consider fines and discharges. However, it is highly
unlikely that Max could be discharged due to the seriousness of the robbery. A fine would also be very
inappropriate since robbery is an indictable offence. The judge would be most inclined towards
imposing a custodial sentence which has been defined in s 76 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 2000
as a sentence of imprisonment or a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence is when the defendant
is sentenced to imprisonment but he is allowed to adhere to a community order instead of going to
prison. S 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the judge to impose a custodial sentence for
serious offences for which a fine is not enough. It is this statutory provision that the judge will consider
when he decides not to impose a fine. Once the judge decides that a custodial sentence is appropriate,
there are some mitigating factors that could be considered. The facts state that Max has had no
previous convictions. S 166 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 lists previous good character as a mitigating
factor. Since this is a first time offence, the judge would reduce Max’s sentence. In addition, Max has
pleaded guilty so this will also have the impact of reducing his sentence by virtue of s 144 of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 which states that there is a one-third reduction for a guilty plea.

Alternatively, the judge may also consider a community order for Max. This was defined in s 177 of the
CJA 2003 as including an unpaid work requirement, an activity requirement, a curfew order, a
programme requirement or a supervision requirement. It is possible that the judge subjects Max to a
suspended sentence described above which would require him to stay at home under a curfew order at
required times. This is monitored through electronic tagging. He might be subject to a supervision order
which would require a probation office to supervise his activities for up to three years. When making a
decision as between a custodial/suspended sentence or a community order, the judge will have at the
back of his mind the aims of sentencing and he will consider which aim is to be given priority.

The main aims of sentencing for an adult are listed in s 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The most
important aim of sentencing is retribution which requires the judge to sentence such that the sentence
reflects the seriousness of the offence and seeks to punish the defendant and take revenge from the
defendant. Connected to this aim is the aim of deterrence which requires the judge to put people off
crime. If the judge prioritizes both these aims of sentencing, he is most likely going to impose a custodial
sentence for Max. Since this is a particularly serious offence, the judge would want the sentence to
reflect society’s disapproval of robbery. The judge would probably impose a custodial sentence so as to
deter the general public from such offences. This would also have the advantage of incapacitating Max
from committing any further offences which is also an important aim of sentencing. On the other hand,
the judge may also consider the aim of rehabilitation. Since Max is very young and only 20, the judge
may consider that a better option would be to educate him and rehabilitate him to prevent re offending.
Prisons are often described as universities of crime. Therefore this could be considered by the judge.
However, since robbery is an indictable offence, a custodial or a suspended sentence would be more
appropriate for Max. In addition, a confiscation order can be made which would require all the proceeds
of the robbery to be taken away from Max.

Frank is 16 and hence a minor. He is a young offender and will be treated differently. If Frank had been
the only defendant in this case, his case would have been tried at the Youth Court rather than the Crown
Court. Code C states that young people cannot be held in a cell at a station like adults. If Frank is
refused bail in this case, he will be remanded to local authority accommodation. Therefore Frank and
Max would not be together. The aims of sentencing for a young offender are set out in the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The aims are to prevent reoffending, the welfare of the offender
needs to be considered and the purposes of sentencing which include punishment, reform,
rehabilitation, reparation and protection of public. It is understood that for a young offender
rehabilitation and reform often takes priority over the other aims. Since this is Frank’s first offence, the
judge will surely consider this in deciding his sentence. A suitable sentence could be a Detention and
Training order which as stated in s 100 of the PCCS(A) 2000 would require Frank to serve half of his
sentence as a custodial sentence and half of it complying with the terms of a community order. This
would be suitable as it would also meet the objective of punishing Frank, yet at the same time working
towards rehabilitation. The time served to meet his custodial sentence would not be in the regular
prisons. Rather, he would be sent to a Young offender’s institution or local authority accommodation.
His community order would be a Youth Rehabilitation order which could also include a curfew
requirement, an exclusion requirement, a supervision order, education requirement or an unpaid work
requirement.

Finally, reparation orders can be made by virtue of s 73 of the PCCS(A) 2000 which could require Frank
to return any proceeds of the robbery. If he is not put into the young offenders institution, his parents
could be involved and bound over to ensure that the community order is satisfied ( s 151 PCCS(A) 2000).

Therefore, sentencing is often left at the discretion of the judge who would sentence subject to general
restrictions laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which require the sentence to be proportionate to
the offence. The judge will have certain sentencing guidelines and a tariff to assist in the decision. Once
the judge finds out the general sentence through the tariff system, the mitigating and aggravating
factors will be considered as well as the aims of sentencing before the final decision is made.
• Types of Sentencing
1) Given that almost half of all prisoners reoffend within a year of their release, in what
circumstances would you say that a custodial sentence is appropriate? Discuss the alternatives
to a custodial sentence.
2) The prisons are overcrowded so it would be far better to impose community sentences.
Critically discuss this statement and examine the circumstances in which a court might choose to
impose a community sentence.

• Fact scenario types

1) Leanne, who is 17, has been convicted of unlawful wounding at the Bachester Youth Court.
What matters should the magistrates consider before deciding upon her sentence? Critically
evaluate the adequacy of the range of sentences open to them?
2) Michael has stolen 17000 worth of computer equipment from his employer. His girlfriend has
sold the items on the internet. They have spent the money obtained on a new car and a holiday.
Michael pleads guilty to theft and Jane to handling stolen goods at their first appearance before
the Magistrates court.
What options are open to the magistrates in sentencing them? What principles will be
considered by the court in arriving at the sentence?
3) Robert,aged 45, has pleaded guilty to robbery before the Crown Court at Meryton. What are the
sentencing options open to the judge? What principles will the judge consider before passing
sentence?
4) Doris, who is 72 years old and has no previous convictions, pleads guilty at the Crown Court to
importing a large quantity of heroine in the UK. What sentencing options are open to the judge
in this case? What principles will be considered in arriving at that decision?
5) Frank aged 16 and Max aged 20 both pleaded guilty to robbery before the Crown Court at
Barchester. Neither has previous convictions but the circumstances of the robbery were serious.
Examine the sentencing options open to the judge and explain the principles that the judge
should consider when passing sentence( sample given)
6) Andy, aged 32, has been found guilty in Barchester Crown Court of assaulting Bill and causing
him serious injury. Briefly explain the types of sentence the court may decide to impost and
discuss which aims they may be trying to achieve.
7) Ivan, aged 21, gets into an argument over a parking space. Ivan pushes John who falls and bangs
his head. John later dies in the hospital. Ivan is tried and is found guilty for manslaughter.
Describe the sentences which might be imposed on Ivan. Consider which aims of sentencing
might be achieved by these sentences.
8) Luca,aged 30, has been found guilty at the Barchester CC of causing grievous bodily harm(an
indictable offence) to Bilal. Explain the types of sentence available to the judge and assess how
well they reflect the aims of sentencing.
Luca, aged 30, has been found guilty at Barchester Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm (an
indictable offence) to Bilal.

Explain the types of sentence available to the judge and assess how well they reflect the aims of
sentencing.

1st para: Points only. Structure and phrase properly.

Highlight that Luca has already been convicted so once he is convicted, the next step for the judge is to
impose a suitable sentence. The judge usually has a discretion to decide the sentence subject to certain
statutory restrictions in the PCC(S)A 2000 as well as the sentencing guidelines laid down by the
sentencing council which includes a tariff for all offences. They will then consider the secondary tariff
principles which includes aggravating and mitigating factors. In addition, the judge will consider the
various aims of sentencing before deciding on an appropriate sentence

2nd para: State the various types of sentences. Highlight that Luca is an adult offender. Therefore, the
main 4 categories must be highlighted. Custodial, Fine, discharge and community order. Since it is an
indictable offence, a fine or discharge will not be appropriate. Judge will have to choose between
custodial and community Order. Define custodial sentence ( s 76 PCC(S)A 2000). Mention s 152 and s
153. Mention s 143 CJA 2003. Then state that by virtue of s 152, judge might conclude that a fine or
community order may not be just in this fact scenario. It all depends on the seriousness of the harm and
the offenders culpability ( s 143). Also mention the aggravating factors ( s 143) and mitigating factors.
Consider whether a suspended sentence would be appropriate

3rd para: Alternatively, consider if a community sentence will be more appropriate. S 177 CJA 2003.

4th para: Choice of judge rests upon the aims of sentencing. If the harm was serious, then deterrence
and retribution and incapacitation, denunciation will be given priority and judge will go for custodial.
Give advantages of custodial and then give disadvantages of custodial. If it’s a first time conviction, then
reform and rehabilitation will be given priority. Give advantages and disadvantages. Court may also
consider reparation and order him to compensate the victim. Compensation order.

Conclusion