Introduction
What is the Sentencing Council?
The Sentencing Council is the independent body responsible for developing sentencing guidelines for the courts to use when passing a sentence. The Council consults on its proposed guidelines before they come into force and makes changes to the guidelines as a result of consultations.
What is the Council consulting about?
The Council has produced this consultation paper in order to seek views from as many people as possible interested in the sentencing of non-fatal strangulation and suffocation offences. However, it is important to clarify that the Council is consulting on sentencing guidelines for these offences and not the legislation upon which such offences are based. The relevant legislation is a matter for Parliament and is, therefore, outside the scope of this exercise.
Why non-fatal strangulation and suffocation offences?
In revising its assault offences guidelines which were published in 2021 the Council had considered research highlighting the seriousness of strangulation as a form of assault. As a result, the revised guidelines provided for the culpability of the perpetrator of any assault involving strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation to be assessed at the highest level of seriousness.
Subsequently, the Government decided that specific offences of non-fatal strangulation and suffocation were necessary to ensure perpetrators could be charged and prosecuted with a sufficiently serious offence even in the absence of physical injuries.
Section 70(1) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created an offence of non-fatal strangulation and a separate offence of non-fatal suffocation. The offences were introduced as part of the Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy and came into force on 7 June 2022.
The legislation does not provide definitions of strangulation or suffocation, but CPS charging guidance for prosecutors states that: ‘the word should be given its ordinary meaning which is the obstruction or compression of blood vessels and/or airways by external pressure to the neck impeding normal breathing or circulation of the blood.’ The guidance provides common examples of acts which may be charged as non-fatal strangulation as:
- one or two hands held around the neck of a person;
- chokehold or head lock – external pressure applied by an arm around the neck;
- ligature – for example a scarf or belt tightened around the neck;
- pressure on the neck from a foot or knee.
CPS prosecution guidance also provides a definition of non-fatal suffocation, confirming this has a wider ordinary definition and is to ‘deprive a person of air which affects their normal breathing.’ Common examples of suffocation are given as:
- putting a hand over the mouth and nose;
- compressing the chest;
- any other force or suppression applied to a person to cause a restriction of breath.
Given that strangulation and suffocation are both forms of assault which are provided for in the assault guidelines as high culpability offences, many sentencers referred to these guidelines when sentencing the new offences after their introduction. In particular the ABH guideline was referred to, as ABH shares the same statutory maximum sentence as the new offences. However, the ABH guideline assesses actual harm caused, and in the absence of physical injuries sentences were not always reflective of the seriousness of the harm caused or risked by an offence. This was noted by the Court of Appeal in R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452, which set out the approach to sentencing these offences until such time a sentencing guideline was available.
This guideline consolidates aspects of that judgment into a guideline format, using the Council’s stepped approach to sentencing. The format of a judgment differs to a guideline meaning some features highlighted as increasing or decreasing seriousness by the Court of Appeal are assessed at step one of the guideline’s seriousness assessment, and others at step two. The rationale for the proposed assessment is explained in this consultation document and anticipated impacts are highlighted in the accompanying resource assessment.
The guideline seeks to ensure appropriate sentences for these offences, as well as proportionality and relativity with sentences for related offences and other sentencing guidelines.
Responding to the consultation
Through this consultation process, the Council is seeking views on:
- the principal factors that make any of the offences included within the draft guidelines more or less serious;
- the additional factors that should influence the sentence;
- the types and lengths of sentence that should be passed;
- whether there are any issues relating to disparity of sentencing and/or broader matters relating to equality and diversity that the guidelines could and should address, and;
- anything else you think should be considered.
We would like to hear from anyone who uses sentencing guidelines in their work or who has an interest in sentencing. We would also like to hear from individuals and organisations representing anyone who could be affected by the proposals including:
- victims and their families;
- defendants and their families;
- those under probation supervision or youth offending teams/supervision;
- those with protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
In the following sections the proposed changes are outlined in detail and you will be asked to give your views. You can give your views by answering some or all of the questions below either by email to consultation@sentencingcouncil.gov.uk or by using the online consultation at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/. A summary of the consultation questions can be found at Annex A.
What else is happening as part of the consultation process?
This is a 12 week public consultation. The Council has not yet planned any consultation meetings but would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss any of the issues raised if this would be helpful. Once the results of the consultation have been considered, the updated guidelines will be published and used by all courts.
Approach to the guidelines
In preparing the guidelines, the Council has had regard to the purposes of sentencing and to its statutory duties.
Applicability of guidelines
When issued as definitive guidelines following consultation the guidelines will apply only to offenders aged 18 and older. General principles to be considered in the sentencing of children and young people are set out in the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline, Sentencing children and young people.
Initial questions:
Question 1: What is your name?
Question 2: What is your email address?
Question 3: Are you answering as an individual? If so, are you happy for your name to be included in the consultation response document?
Question 4: If you are answering on behalf of an organisation, group or bench, please provide the name of the organisation, group or bench.
Equality and Diversity
The Sentencing Council considers matters relating to equality and diversity to be important in its work. The Council is always concerned if it appears that the guidelines have different outcomes for different groups. The Council published the report ‘Equality and diversity in the work of the Sentencing Council’ in January 2023, designed to identify and analyse any potential for the Council’s work to cause disparity in sentencing outcomes across demographic groups.
In addition, the available demographic data, (sex, age group and ethnicity of offenders) is examined as part of the work on each guideline, to see if there are any concerns around potential disparities within sentencing. For some offences it may not be possible to draw any conclusions on whether there are any issues of disparity of sentence outcomes between different groups caused by the guidelines, for example because of a lack of available data or because volumes of data are too low. However, the Council takes care to ensure that the guidelines operate fairly and includes reference to the Equal Treatment Bench Book in all guidelines:
Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
The Council has had regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010 in drafting these proposals, specifically with respect to any potential effect of the proposals on victims and offenders with protected characteristics.
The demographic data on sex, age and ethnicity have been presented for the period July 2022 to June 2023. The statistics discussed below can be found within the data tables published on the Council’s website.
Sex
Across the offences in scope for this consultation, substantially more males were sentenced compared to females. Of the around 700 offenders sentenced between July 2022 and June 2023, the majority were male, with fewer than 10 female offenders sentenced in total. For male offenders, immediate custody was the most common sentence, comprising 57 per cent of sentences imposed over the 12 months from July 2022 to June 2023, followed by 29 per cent receiving a suspended sentence order and 13 per cent a community order. For female offenders, slightly under half (43 per cent) received a suspended sentence order, 29 per cent received an immediate custodial sentence and 29 per cent received a community order.
Age group
Immediate custody was typically the most common sentence outcome across all the age groups. The majority (88 per cent) of offenders sentenced were under the age of 50. Between the ages of 25 and 49, the mean average custodial sentence length (ACSL) after any reduction for a guilty plea was fairly consistent at around 17 months’ custody for the 12 month period July 2022 to June 2023. There were some variations in ACSL for the younger and older age groups. However, these groups included lower numbers of offenders sentenced and therefore the ACSLs derived are more sensitive to small shifts in volume.
Ethnicity
In general, across these offences, most offenders were white (87 per cent, where ethnicity was known). Across all ethnicities, immediate custody was the most frequent outcome. There was some variation in the ACSL across ethnicity groups, although caution should be taken comparing between groups as some ethnicities contained much smaller volumes of offenders sentenced.
The guideline and its factors are intended to apply equally to all offenders aged 18 or over. Throughout this document your views will be sought on whether there are any disparity issues with proposals, such as whether there are any factors or aspects of the guideline which may disadvantage one group over another.
Non-fatal strangulation and suffocation
Section 70(1) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 inserted section 75A into Part 5 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (SCA 2015) creating an offence of non-fatal strangulation (section75A(1)(a)) and a separate offence of non-fatal suffocation (section 75A(1)(b)). The offences came into force on 7 June 2022.
75A Strangulation or suffocation
(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally strangles another person (“B”), or
(b) A does any other act to B that—
(i) affects B’s ability to breathe, and
(ii) constitutes battery of B.
The statutory maximum sentence for either offence is 5 years imprisonment. There are racially or religiously aggravated versions of the offences which carry a maximum of 7 years.
The Sentencing Council proposes to have one guideline covering both offences, with the same culpability and harm factors, and the same aggravating and mitigating factors.
While the offence was introduced in the Domestic Abuse Act and is predominantly a domestic abuse related offence, the Council notes that the offence is increasingly being charged in a non-domestic context. The proposed guideline factors take this into account.
Step One
The first step of the guideline requires the sentencer to assess the culpability level of the offender and the harm caused by the offence.
Culpability factors
Culpability factors provide for assessment of an offender’s intention or blameworthiness in committing the offence. The Council considers that all offences of strangulation and suffocation are very serious. However, even with this as the starting position, it is necessary for the guideline to provide for the full spectrum of culpability of an offender. To identify factors relevant to the seriousness of offences analysis of a high proportion of transcripts of recently sentenced offences was undertaken, and the factors below reflect the range of relevant culpability features identified. Some of these were also noted as factors which aggravated an offence, or in some instances made it less serious, in the R v Cook judgment.
Three levels of culpability are proposed:
Culpability
A
- Sustained or repeated strangulation or suffocation
- Use of ligature
B
- Cases falling between category A or C because:
- Factors in both high and lesser categories are present which balance each other out; and/or
- The offender’s culpability falls between the factors as described in high and lesser culpability
C
- Very brief incident and voluntary desistance
- Excessive self defence
- Mental disorder or learning disability, where linked to the commission of the offence
High culpability
The Council considers that offences involving sustained or repeated acts or use of ligature are particularly serious and demonstrate a high level of culpability of an offender.
In other assault offence guidelines the culpability factor ‘sustained or repeated’ was replaced with ‘prolonged and persistent’ when the guidelines were revised. However, the Council approved of the reference in R v Cook to sustained and repeated in the context of acts of strangulation and suffocation. It considers the factor has an appropriately lower threshold and is more applicable in the context of these acts than ‘prolonged or persistent’. The Council also considers that use of a ligature indicates a very specific intention on the part of an offender to cause serious fear of, or serious actual, harm.
The Council considered whether the vulnerability of a victim should be included as a high culpability factor as it is for other assault offence guidelines. However, it decided that any domestic context is an aggravating feature of an offence in any category and should increase the starting point at step two. Other specific features relating to a victim’s vulnerability, such as being isolated and unable to seek assistance, will further aggravate an offence.
Medium culpability
Offences falling within this category do not fall squarely within a higher or lesser culpability category, either having higher and lesser culpability factors present, or the culpability falls between the factors specified in higher and lesser culpability.
Lesser culpability
This category includes factors which indicate a difference in intention or responsibility from high and medium culpability offences. This is not to say they are still not serious, as is reflected in the sentence starting points for offences within this category. It is expected that only a small proportion of offences are likely to fall squarely within this category.
The Council agreed with the Court of Appeal that a very brief incident involving voluntary desistance by the offender is in a different category than a sustained and determined effort by an offender to terrify or seriously harm a victim. The threshold for this factor is high and requires that the incident be both very brief and that there be voluntary desistance.
The Council also considered the excessive self-defence factor included in assault guidelines may be relevant to a small number of these offences, such as where an offender uses strangulation during the course of fending off an attacker.
Finally, the factor relating to mental disorder or learning disability is also provided for in other assault offence guidelines and was noted as present in a small number of offences considered. Where present this factor may reduce the responsibility of the offender, such as where they are suffering from paranoia and believe they are subject to an imminent threat. This factor would usually require supportive medical or other professional evidence and is not easily relied upon.
Question 5: Do you have any comments on the proposed culpability factors?
Question 6: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age or ethnicity?
Harm factors
Once the court has determined the level of culpability, the next step is to consider the harm caused by the offence.
Harm in these offences is different from other serious assault offences, as often a very high degree of harm will result although little or no visible injury may occur. The Council considered a range of research on the harm present in strangulation offences and agreed that a high degree of psychological harm will nearly always be present, particularly in a domestic abuse offence. A victim subjected to this offence is highly likely to experience sheer terror at their breathing being restricted, and fear for their life and be deeply traumatised.
Research the Council considered confirmed that there is a high risk of loss of consciousness or death from even a brief offence, and where physical injuries do occur these can include difficulties in swallowing and breathing, bruising, internal injuries and loss of consciousness. Research highlights that delayed impacts of restricted breathing can include increased risk of strokes, heart attack, anxiety, depression and issues with memory and concentration.
Given the harm inherent in strangulation and research findings that a very high risk of harm or death is likely even where an offence is short-lived, the Council considers that there can only be two categories of harm. The highest category provides for severe harm which has substantial ongoing impacts and long-term effects on a victim. The other harm category provides for all other cases.
Harm
All cases of strangulation involve a very high degree of inherent harm. The court should assess the level of harm caused with reference to the impact on the victim.
1
- Offence results in a severe physical injury or psychological condition which has a substantial and long-term effect on the victim’s ability to carry out their normal day to day activities or on their ability to work.
2
- All other cases
Question 7: Do you have any comments on the proposed harm factors?
Question 8: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age or ethnicity?
Step Two
Once the court has determined the culpability and harm categories at step one, the next step is to identify the starting point of the sentence.
Sentence levels
The maximum sentence for the non-racially or religiously aggravated offence is 5 years imprisonment, which is the same as the statutory maximum sentence for ABH and section 20 GBH offences.
The proposed sentences maintain the starting point of 18 months custody which the Court of Appeal stated would be appropriate for offences involving particular features. Only the lowest category of offence has a lower starting point. This would be an offence involving a lesser culpability factor and the lowest level of harm. The guideline provides for an increase on starting points at step two where aggravating features are present, such as the offence being committed in a domestic context, the victim being isolated and unable to seek assistance and the presence of children. Multiple aggravating factors will increase the sentence significantly above the starting point.
An important objective of sentencing guidelines is that relativity and proportionality between sentences for related offences is achieved. The starting point sentence for category A1 offences, which are the most serious, is slightly lower than an equivalent category GBH s20 offence. This is because a category A1 GBH s20 offence requires a “permanent, irreversible injury or condition which has a substantial and long-term effect on the victim’s ability to carry out their normal day to day activities or on their ability to work,” whereas that level of harm would not be present in offences charged as non-fatal strangulation or suffocation. The starting point is significantly higher than the same category of an equivalent ABH offence. A category A2 offence starting point is aligned with the highest category starting point for an ABH offence.
Sentence types
In the Cook judgment, the Court of Appeal specified that offences with particular features should ordinarily receive immediate custody. The Council considered whether this was a principle that should be explicitly specified in the guideline.
The Sentencing Council’s guideline for the Imposition of Community and Custodial sentences is the overarching guideline which sets out the considerations sentencers must undertake in determining whether a custodial sentence is capable of being suspended. Where a sentence is over 2 years it cannot be suspended. For any offence receiving a sentence of 2 years custody or less, the court must consider if the sentence is capable of being suspended with reference to a weighted assessment which includes a number of factors. The Council considered if it would be appropriate in sentencing these particular offences to disregard the Imposition guideline and specify that only immediate custody should be imposed but decided that this would be wrong in principle. This is because it would be unjust to distinguish non-fatal strangulation and suffocation from other offences which are equally serious, as well as undermining broader sentencing principles in the Imposition guideline which courts are required to follow for all other imprisonable offences. The overarching Domestic abuse guideline will also apply where offences are committed in a domestic context.
The Council considers that for a high proportion of offences the starting points and aggravating factors present, particularly where an offence is committed in a domestic context, mean that sentences will be of such a duration that they are not capable of being suspended. Where they are, the Council considers it is right that the court considers whether the seriousness of the offence means that immediate custody is unavoidable with reference to the relevant factors in the Imposition guideline.
Proposed sentences are included in the table below. As noted above, it is intended that they are relative and proportionate to sentences for offences of related seriousness. Starting points are considered proportionate and the category range provides for increases or decreases from this starting point where aggravating and mitigating factors are present.
Having determined the category at step one the court should use the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within the category range below. The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions.
| Harm | Culpability | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |
| Harm 1 |
Starting point |
Starting point |
Starting point |
|
Category range |
Category range |
Category range |
|
| Harm 2 |
Starting point |
Starting point |
Starting point |
|
Category range |
Category range |
Category range |
Question 9: Do you have any comments on the proposed sentence levels?
Aggravating and mitigating factors
Once the starting point has been identified the court then considers any additional factors, not identified at step one, which may aggravate or mitigate the offence and increase or decrease the starting point.
The proposed factors are:
Factors increasing seriousness
Statutory aggravating factors:
- Previous convictions,having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Guidance on the use of previous convictions
The following guidance should be considered when seeking to determine the degree to which previous convictions should aggravate sentence:
Section 65 of the Sentencing Code states that:
(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence (“the current offence”) committed by an offender who has one or more relevant previous convictions.
(2) The court must treat as an aggravating factor each relevant previous conviction that it considers can reasonably be so treated, having regard in particular to— (a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence, and (b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction.
(3) Where the court treats a relevant previous conviction as an aggravating factor under subsection (2) it must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
- Previous convictions are considered at step two in the Council’s offence-specific guidelines.
- The primary significance of previous convictions (including convictions in other jurisdictions) is the extent to which they indicate trends in offending behaviour and possibly the offender’s response to earlier sentences.
- Previous convictions are normally of relevance to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
- Previous convictions of a type different from the current offence may be of relevance where they are an indication of persistent offending or escalation and/or a failure to comply with previous court orders.
- Numerous and frequent previous convictions might indicate an underlying problem (for example, an addiction) that could be addressed more effectively in the community and will not necessarily indicate that a custodial sentence is necessary.
- If the offender received a non-custodial disposal for the previous offence, a court should not necessarily move to a custodial sentence for the fresh offence.
- In cases involving significant persistent offending, the community and custody thresholds may be crossed even though the current offence normally warrants a lesser sentence. If a custodial sentence is imposed it should be proportionate and kept to the necessary minimum.
- The aggravating effect of relevant previous convictions reduces with the passage of time; older convictions are of less relevance to the offender’s culpability for the current offence and less likely to be predictive of future offending.
- Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
- The court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it. Where there has been a significant gap between previous and current convictions or a reduction in the frequency of offending this may indicate that the offender has made attempts to desist from offending in which case the aggravating effect of the previous offending will diminish.
- Where the current offence is significantly less serious than the previous conviction (suggesting a decline in the gravity of offending), the previous conviction may carry less weight.
- When considering the totality of previous offending a court should take a rounded view of the previous crimes and not simply aggregate the individual offences.
- Where information is available on the context of previous offending this may assist the court in assessing the relevance of that prior offending to the current offence
- Offence committed whilst on bail
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Section 64 of the Sentencing Code states:
In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court must - (a) treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor and (b) state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
- Offence motivated by, or demonstrating hostility based on any of the following characteristics or presumed characteristics of the victim: disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
See below for the statutory provisions.
- Note the requirement for the court to state that the offence has been aggravated by the relevant hostility.
- Where the element of hostility is core to the offending, the aggravation will be higher than where it plays a lesser role.
Section 66 of the Sentencing Code states:
Hostility (1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence which is aggravated by—
(a) racial hostility,
(b) religious hostility,
(c) hostility related to disability,
(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or
(e) hostility related to transgender identity.
This is subject to subsection (3). (2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by hostility of any of those types as an aggravating factor, and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) So far as it relates to racial and religious hostility, this section does not apply in relation to an offence under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated offences). (4) For the purposes of this section, an offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (1) if—
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,
(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,
(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,
(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be)
(v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or
(b) the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by—
(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,
(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,
(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,
(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)
(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.
(5) For the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), it is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph. (6) In this section—
(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;
(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;
(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;
(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;
(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.
Other aggravating factors:
- Offence committed in domestic context
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Refer to the Domestic abuse - overarching principles guideline
- Victim isolated and unable to seek assistance
- Offence was committed against person providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services to the public
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
This reflects:
- the fact that people in public facing roles are more exposed to the possibility of harm and consequently more vulnerable and/or
- the fact that someone is working in the public interest merits the additional protection of the courts.
This applies whether the victim is a public or private employee or acting in a voluntary capacity.
Care should be taken to avoid double counting where the statutory aggravating factor relating to emergency workers or to those providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services to the public applies.
- History of violence or abuse towards victim by offender
- Presence of children
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- This reflects the psychological harm that may be caused to those who witnessed the offence.
- The presence of one or more children may in some situations make the primary victim more vulnerable – for example an adult may be less able to resist the offender if concerned about the safety or welfare of children present.
- When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
- Gratuitous degradation of victim
- Abuse of trust or power
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- A close examination of the facts is necessary and a clear justification should be given if abuse of trust is to be found.
- In order for an abuse of trust to make an offence more serious the relationship between the offender and victim(s) must be one that would give rise to the offender having a significant level of responsibility towards the victim(s) on which the victim(s) would be entitled to rely.
- Abuse of trust may occur in many factual situations. Examples may include relationships such as teacher and pupil, parent and child, employer and employee, professional adviser and client, or carer (whether paid or unpaid) and dependant. It may also include ad hoc situations such as a late-night taxi driver and a lone passenger. These examples are not exhaustive and do not necessarily indicate that abuse of trust is present.
- Additionally an offence may be made more serious where an offender has abused their position to facilitate and/or conceal offending.
- Where an offender has been given an inappropriate level of responsibility, abuse of trust is unlikely to apply.
- Any steps taken to prevent the victim reporting an incident, obtaining assistance and/or from assisting or supporting the prosecution
- Commission of offence whilst under the influence of alcohol/drugs
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
The fact that an offender is voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence will tend to increase the seriousness of the offence provided that the intoxication has contributed to the offending.
This applies regardless of whether the offender is under the influence of legal or illegal substance(s).
In the case of a person addicted to drugs or alcohol the intoxication may be considered not to be voluntary, but the court should have regard to the extent to which the offender has sought help or engaged with any assistance which has been offered or made available in dealing with the addiction.
An offender who has voluntarily consumed drugs and/or alcohol must accept the consequences of the behaviour that results, even if it is out of character.
- Offence committed whilst on licence or post sentence supervision
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- An offender who is subject to licence or post sentence supervision is under a particular obligation to desist from further offending.
- The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of a licence or order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
- Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of a licence or order regard should be had to totality.
- Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
- Failure to comply with current court orders
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- Commission of an offence while subject to a relevant court order makes the offence more serious.
- The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of an order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
- Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of an order regard should be had to totality
- Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
Question 10: Do you have any comments on the proposed aggravating factors?
Question 11: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age, or ethnicity?
The majority of mitigating factors are standard factors included in sentencing guidelines, with one factor from the assault guidelines included:
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
- No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
- First time offenders usually represent a lower risk of reoffending. Reoffending rates for first offenders are significantly lower than rates for repeat offenders. In addition, first offenders are normally regarded as less blameworthy than offenders who have committed the same crime several times already. For these reasons first offenders receive a mitigated sentence.
- Where there are previous offences but these are old and /or are for offending of a different nature, the sentence will normally be reduced to reflect that the new offence is not part of a pattern of offending and there is therefore a lower likelihood of reoffending.
- When assessing whether a previous conviction is ‘recent’ the court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it.
- Previous convictions are likely to be ‘relevant’ when they share characteristics with the current offence (examples of such characteristics include, but are not limited to: dishonesty, violence, abuse of position or trust, use or possession of weapons, disobedience of court orders). In general the more serious the previous offending the longer it will retain relevance.
- Remorse
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
The court will need to be satisfied that the offender is genuinely remorseful for the offending behaviour in order to reduce the sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).
Lack of remorse should never be treated as an aggravating factor.
Remorse can present itself in many different ways. A simple assertion of the fact may be insufficient.
The court should be aware that the offender’s demeanour in court or the way they articulate their feelings of remorse may be affected by, for example:
- nervousness
- a lack of understanding of the system
- mental disorder
- learning disabilities
- communication difficulties (including where English is not their first language)
- a belief that they have been or will be discriminated against
- peer pressure to behave in a certain way because of others present
- age and/or a lack of maturity etc.
If a PSR has been prepared it may provide valuable assistance in this regard.
Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
- Positive character and/or exemplary conduct (regardless of previous convictions)
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Evidence that an offender has demonstrated a positive side to their character may reduce the sentence.
This factor may apply whether or not the offender has previous convictions.
However:
- This factor is less likely to be relevant where the offending is very serious
- Where an offender has used their positive character or status to facilitate or conceal the offending it could be treated as an aggravating factor.
- History of significant violence or abuse towards the offender by the victim
- Age and/or lack of maturity (which may be applicable to offenders aged 18-25)
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Where a person has committed the offence under the age of 18, regard should be had to the overarching guideline for sentencing children and young people. That guideline may also be relevant to offending by young adults.
Age and/or lack of maturity can affect:
- the offender’s responsibility for the offence and
- the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence.
The emotional and developmental age of an offender is of at least equal importance to their chronological age (if not greater).
In particular young adults (typically aged 18-25) are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to:
- evaluate the consequences of their actions
- limit impulsivity
- limit risk taking
Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers.
Immaturity can also result from atypical brain development. Environment plays a role in neurological development and factors such as adverse childhood experiences including deprivation and/or abuse may affect development.
An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with custody and therefore may be more susceptible to self-harm in custody.
An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with the requirements of a community order without appropriate support.
There is a greater capacity for change in immature offenders and they may be receptive to opportunities to address their offending behaviour and change their conduct.
Many young people who offend either stop committing crime, or begin a process of stopping, in their late teens and early twenties. Therefore a young adult’s previous convictions may not be indicative of a tendency for further offending.
Where the offender is is care experienced or a care leaver the court should enquire as to any effect a sentence may have on the offender’s ability to make use of support from the local authority. (Young adult care leavers are entitled to time limited support. Leaving care services may change at the age of 21 and cease at the age of 25, unless the young adult is in education at that point). See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 1.16 and 1.17).
Where an offender has turned 18 between the commission of the offence and conviction the court should take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence was committed, but applying the purposes of sentencing adult offenders. See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3).
When considering a custodial or community sentence for a young adult the Probation Service should address these issues in a PSR.
- Mental disorder or learning disability, where not linked to the commission of the offence
Effective from: 01 October 2020
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Refer to the Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline.
Note in particular paragraph 5 for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic offenders.
- Sole or primary carer for dependent relative(s)
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered. See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.
For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
Where custody is unavoidable consideration of the impact on dependants may be relevant to the length of the sentence imposed and whether the sentence can be suspended.
For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less weight.
When imposing a community sentence on an offender with primary caring responsibilities the effect on dependants must be considered in determining suitable requirements.
The court should ensure that it has all relevant information about dependent children before deciding on sentence.
When an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, the court must consider whether proper arrangements have been made for the care of any dependent children and if necessary consider adjourning sentence for this to be done.
When considering a community or custodial sentence for an offender who has, or may have, caring responsibilities the court should ask the Probation Service to address these issues in a PSR.
Useful information can be found in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (see in particular Chapter 6 paragraphs 119 to 125)
- Pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
When considering a custodial or community sentence for a pregnant or postnatal offender (someone who has given birth in the previous 12 months) the Probation Service should be asked to address the issues below in a pre-sentence report. If a suitable pre-sentence report is not available, sentencing should normally be adjourned until one is available.
When sentencing a pregnant or postnatal woman, relevant considerations may include:
- the medical needs of the offender including her mental health needs
- any effect of the sentence on the physical and mental health of the offender
- any effect of the sentence on the child
The impact of custody on an offender who is pregnant or postnatal can be harmful for both the offender and the child including by separation, especially in the first two years of life.
Access to a place in a prison Mother & Baby Unit is not automatic and when available, the court may wish to enquire for how long the place will be available.
Women in custody are likely to have complex health needs which may increase the risks associated with pregnancy for both the offender and the child. The NHS classifies all pregnancies in prison as high risk.
There may be difficulties accessing medical assistance or specialist maternity services in custody.
This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered. See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.
For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
Where immediate custody is unavoidable, all of the factors above may be relevant to the length of the sentence.
The court should address the issues above when giving reasons for the sentence.
- Determination and/or demonstration of steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Where offending is driven by or closely associated with drug or alcohol abuse (for example stealing to feed a habit, or committing acts of disorder or violence whilst drunk) a commitment to address the underlying issue (including where the offender has actively sought support but, for reasons outside their control, it has not been received) may justify a reduction in sentence. This will be particularly relevant where the court is considering whether to impose a sentence that focuses on rehabilitation.
Similarly, a commitment to address other underlying issues that may influence the offender’s behaviour (including where the offender has actively sought support but, for reasons outside their control, it has not been received) may justify the imposition of a sentence that focusses on rehabilitation.
The court will be assisted by a PSR in making this assessment.
- Serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- The court can take account of physical disability or a serious medical condition by way of mitigation as a reason for reducing the length of the sentence, either on the ground of the greater impact which imprisonment will have on the offender, or as a matter of generally expressed mercy in the individual circumstances of the case.
- However, such a condition, even when it is difficult to treat in prison, will not automatically entitle the offender to a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.
- There will always be a need to balance issues personal to an offender against the gravity of the offending (including the harm done to victims), and the public interest in imposing appropriate punishment for serious offending.
- A terminal prognosis is not in itself a reason to reduce the sentence even further. The court must impose a sentence that properly meets the aims of sentencing even if it will carry the clear prospect that the offender will die in custody. The prospect of death in the near future will be a matter considered by the prison authorities and the Secretary of State under the early release on compassionate grounds procedure (ERCG).
- But, an offender’s knowledge that he will likely face the prospect of death in prison, subject only to the ERCG provisions, is a factor that can be considered by the sentencing judge when determining the sentence that it would be just to impose.
- Difficult and/or deprived background or personal circumstances
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
The court may be assisted by a pre-sentence report in assessing whether there are factors in the offender’s background or current personal circumstances which may be relevant to sentencing. Such factors may be relevant to:
- the offender’s responsibility for the offence and/or
- the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Courts should consider that different groups within the criminal justice system have faced multiple disadvantages which may have a bearing on their offending. Such disadvantages include but are not limited to:
- experience of discrimination
- negative experiences of authority
- early experience of loss, neglect or abuse
- early experience of offending by family members
- being care experienced or a care leaver
- negative influences from peers
- difficulties relating to the misuse of drugs and/or alcohol (but note: being voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence is an aggravating factor)
- low educational attainment
- insecure housing
- mental health difficulties
- poverty
- direct or indirect victim of domestic abuse
There are a wide range of personal experiences or circumstances that may be relevant to offending behaviour. The Equal Treatment Bench Book contains useful information on social exclusion and poverty (see in particular Chapter 11, paragraphs 58 to 71). The Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline may also be of relevance.
- Prospects of or in work, training or education
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered. See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.
Where an offender is in, or has a realistic prospect of starting, work, education or training this may indicate a willingness to rehabilitate and desist from future offending.
Similarly, the loss of employment, education or training opportunities may have a negative impact on the likelihood of an offender being rehabilitated or desisting from future offending.
The court may be assisted by a pre-sentence report in assessing the relevance of this factor to the individual offender.
The absence of work, training or education should never be treated as an aggravating factor.
The court may ask for evidence of employment, training etc or the prospects of such, but should bear in mind any reasonable practical difficulties an offender may have in providing this.
For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less (if any) weight.
Question 12: Do you have any comments on the proposed mitigating factors?
Question 13: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age or ethnicity?
Racially and Religiously aggravated offences
Sentencing guidelines provide for the assessment of seriousness of racially and religiously aggravated offences at step three of the guideline. The starting point of the sentence will be determined by the step one seriousness assessment and adjusted for aggravating and mitigating factors at step two, before further adjustment at step three to reflect the increased statutory maximum sentence for the aggravated offence.
Other steps
There are then a number of other steps the court will consider in finalising the sentence. These are steps 4 – 10 included in the draft guideline. These are standard steps in Sentencing Council guidelines and are not specific to this offence so are not subject to consultation.
Question 14: Do you have any other comments on the proposed guideline that have not been covered elsewhere?
Annex A: Draft guideline
Strangulation or suffocation / Racially or religiously aggravated strangulation or suffocation
Serious Crime Act 2015, s.75A
Serious Crime Act 2015, s.75A
Non-fatal strangulation, Serious Crime Act 2015 (section 75A(1)(a))
Non-fatal suffocation, Serious Crime Act 2015 (section 75A(1)(b))
Racially or religiously aggravated offences, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (section 29)
Triable either way
Section 75A
Maximum: 5 years’ custody
Offence range: High level community order – 4 years 6 months’ custody
Section 29
Maximum: 7 years’ custody
These are specified offences listed in part 1 of Schedule 18 for the purposes of sections 266 and 279 (extended sentence for certain violent, sexual or terrorism offences) of the Sentencing Code.
Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
In accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Sentencing Council issues this definitive guideline. It applies to all offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after the effective date of this guideline, regardless of the date of the offence.*
Section 59(1) of the Sentencing Code provides that:
“Every court –
- must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, and
- must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function,
unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”
This guideline applies only to offenders aged 18 and older. General principles to be considered in the sentencing of children and young people are in the Sentencing Council definitive guideline, Overarching Principles – Sentencing Children and Young People.
*The maximum sentence that applies to an offence is the maximum that applied at the date of the offence.
For racially or religiously aggravated offences the category of the offence should be identified with reference to the factors below, and the sentence increased in accordance with the guidance at Step Three
Step 1 – Determining the offence category
The court should determine the offence category with reference only to the factors listed in the tables below. In order to determine the category the court should assess culpability and harm.
Culpability
A
- Sustained or repeated strangulation or suffocation
- Use of ligature
B
- Cases falling between category A or C because:
- Factors in both high and lesser categories are present which balance each other out; and/or
- The offender’s culpability falls between the factors as described in high and lesser culpability
C
- Very brief incident and voluntary desistance
- Excessive self defence
- Mental disorder or learning disability, where linked to the commission of the offence
Harm
All cases of strangulation involve a very high degree of inherent harm. The court should assess the level of harm caused with reference to the impact on the victim.
1
- Offence results in a severe physical injury or psychological condition which has a substantial and long-term effect on the victim’s ability to carry out their normal day to day activities or on their ability to work.
2
- All other cases
Step 2 – Starting point and category range
Having determined the category, the court should use the corresponding starting points to reach a sentence within the category range below. The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions.
| Harm | Culpability | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |
| Harm 1 |
Starting point |
Starting point |
Starting point |
|
Category range |
Category range |
Category range |
|
| Harm 2 |
Starting point |
Starting point |
Starting point |
|
Category range |
Category range |
Category range |
For further information see Imposition of community and custodial sentences.
- The seriousness of the offence should be the initial factor in determining which requirements to include in a community order. Offence specific guidelines refer to three sentencing levels within the community order band based on offence seriousness (low, medium and high). The culpability and harm present in the offence(s) should be considered to identify which of the three sentencing levels within the community order band is appropriate. See below for non-exhaustive examples of requirements that might be appropriate in each.
- At least one requirement MUST be imposed for the purpose of punishment and/or a fine imposed in addition to the community order unless there are exceptional circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender that would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so.
- A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence.
- Community orders can fulfil all of the purposes of sentencing. In particular, they can have the effect of restricting the offender’s liberty while providing punishment in the community, rehabilitation for the offender, and/or ensuring that the offender engages in reparative activities.
- A community order must not be imposed unless the offence is ‘serious enough to warrant such a sentence’. Where an offender is being sentenced for a non-imprisonable offence, there is no power to make a community order.
- Sentencers must consider all available disposals at the time of sentence; even where the threshold for a community sentence has been passed, a fine or discharge may be an appropriate penalty. In particular, a Band D fine may be an appropriate alternative to a community order.
- The court must ensure that the restriction on the offender’s liberty is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and that the requirements imposed are the most suitable for the offender.
- Sentences should not necessarily escalate from one community order range to the next on each sentencing occasion. The decision as to the appropriate range of community order should be based upon the seriousness of the new offence(s) (which will take into account any previous convictions).
- In many cases, a pre-sentence report will be pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a community order and, if so, whether particular requirements or combinations of requirements are suitable for an individual offender. Whenever the court reaches the provisional view that a community order may be appropriate, it should request a pre-sentence report (whether written or verbal) unless the court is of the opinion that a report is unnecessary in all the circumstances of the case.
- It may be helpful to indicate to the Probation Service the court’s preliminary opinion as to which of the three sentencing ranges is relevant and the purpose(s) of sentencing that the package of requirements is expected to fulfil. Ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case. If an adjournment cannot be avoided, the information should be provided to the Probation Service in written form and a copy retained on the court file for the benefit of the sentencing court. However, the court must make clear to the offender that all sentencing options remain open including, in appropriate cases, committal for sentence to the Crown Court.
| Low | Medium | High |
| Offences only just cross community order threshold, where the seriousness of the offence or the nature of the offender’s record means that a discharge or fine is inappropriate
In general, only one requirement will be appropriate and the length may be curtailed if additional requirements are necessary |
Offences that obviously fall within the community order band | Offences only just fall below the custody threshold or the custody threshold is crossed but a community order is more appropriate in the circumstances
More intensive sentences which combine two or more requirements may be appropriate |
Suitable requirements might include:
|
Suitable requirements might include:
|
Suitable requirements might include:
|
|
* If order does not contain a punitive requirement, suggested fine levels are indicated below: |
||
|
BAND A FINE |
BAND B FINE |
BAND C FINE |
**Note: Changes to the curfew requirements brought in by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 are set out in the Requirements section in the Overarching Guideline: Imposition of community and custodial sentences, but are not reflected in the ranges above.
Sentencing flowcharts are available at Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences definitive guideline.
The approach to the imposition of a custodial sentence should be as follows:
1) Has the custody threshold been passed?
- A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
- There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offence-specific guidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no offence specific guideline is available to determine seriousness, the harm caused by the offence, the culpability of the offender and any previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment.
- The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.
2) Is it unavoidable that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed?
- Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.
- For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
3) What is the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence?
- In considering this the court must NOT consider any licence or post sentence supervision requirements which may subsequently be imposed upon the offender’s release.
4) Can the sentence be suspended?
- A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.
The following factors should be weighed in considering whether it is possible to suspend the sentence:
|
Factors indicating that it would not be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence |
Factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence |
|
Offender presents a risk/danger to the public |
Realistic prospect of rehabilitation |
|
Appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody |
Strong personal mitigation |
|
History of poor compliance with court orders |
Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others |
The imposition of a custodial sentence is both punishment and a deterrent. To ensure that the overall terms of the suspended sentence are commensurate with offence seriousness, care must be taken to ensure requirements imposed are not excessive. A court wishing to impose onerous or intensive requirements should reconsider whether a community sentence might be more appropriate.
Pre-sentence report
Whenever the court reaches the provisional view that:
- the custody threshold has been passed; and, if so
- the length of imprisonment which represents the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence;
the court should obtain a pre-sentence report, whether verbal or written, unless the court considers a report to be unnecessary. Ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case.
Magistrates: Consult your legal adviser before deciding to sentence to custody without a pre-sentence report.
Suspended Sentences: General Guidance
i) The guidance regarding pre-sentence reports applies if suspending custody.
ii) If the court imposes a term of imprisonment of between 14 days and 2 years (subject to magistrates’ courts sentencing powers), it may suspend the sentence for between 6 months and 2 years (the ‘operational period’). The time for which a sentence is suspended should reflect the length of the sentence; up to 12 months might normally be appropriate for a suspended sentence of up to 6 months.
iii) Where the court imposes two or more sentences to be served consecutively, the court may suspend the sentence where the aggregate of the terms is between 14 days and 2 years (subject to magistrates’ courts sentencing powers).
iv) When the court suspends a sentence, it may impose one or more requirements for the offender to undertake in the community. The requirements are identical to those available for community orders, see the guideline on Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.
v) A custodial sentence that is suspended should be for the same term that would have applied if the sentence was to be served immediately.
The court should then consider further adjustment for any aggravating or mitigating factors. The following is a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in an upward or downward adjustment from the sentence arrived at so far.
Factors increasing seriousness
Statutory aggravating factors:
- Previous convictions,having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Guidance on the use of previous convictions
The following guidance should be considered when seeking to determine the degree to which previous convictions should aggravate sentence:
Section 65 of the Sentencing Code states that:
(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence (“the current offence”) committed by an offender who has one or more relevant previous convictions.
(2) The court must treat as an aggravating factor each relevant previous conviction that it considers can reasonably be so treated, having regard in particular to— (a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence, and (b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction.
(3) Where the court treats a relevant previous conviction as an aggravating factor under subsection (2) it must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
- Previous convictions are considered at step two in the Council’s offence-specific guidelines.
- The primary significance of previous convictions (including convictions in other jurisdictions) is the extent to which they indicate trends in offending behaviour and possibly the offender’s response to earlier sentences.
- Previous convictions are normally of relevance to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
- Previous convictions of a type different from the current offence may be of relevance where they are an indication of persistent offending or escalation and/or a failure to comply with previous court orders.
- Numerous and frequent previous convictions might indicate an underlying problem (for example, an addiction) that could be addressed more effectively in the community and will not necessarily indicate that a custodial sentence is necessary.
- If the offender received a non-custodial disposal for the previous offence, a court should not necessarily move to a custodial sentence for the fresh offence.
- In cases involving significant persistent offending, the community and custody thresholds may be crossed even though the current offence normally warrants a lesser sentence. If a custodial sentence is imposed it should be proportionate and kept to the necessary minimum.
- The aggravating effect of relevant previous convictions reduces with the passage of time; older convictions are of less relevance to the offender’s culpability for the current offence and less likely to be predictive of future offending.
- Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
- The court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it. Where there has been a significant gap between previous and current convictions or a reduction in the frequency of offending this may indicate that the offender has made attempts to desist from offending in which case the aggravating effect of the previous offending will diminish.
- Where the current offence is significantly less serious than the previous conviction (suggesting a decline in the gravity of offending), the previous conviction may carry less weight.
- When considering the totality of previous offending a court should take a rounded view of the previous crimes and not simply aggregate the individual offences.
- Where information is available on the context of previous offending this may assist the court in assessing the relevance of that prior offending to the current offence
- Offence committed whilst on bail
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Section 64 of the Sentencing Code states:
In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court must - (a) treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor and (b) state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
- Offence motivated by, or demonstrating hostility based on any of the following characteristics or presumed characteristics of the victim: disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
See below for the statutory provisions.
- Note the requirement for the court to state that the offence has been aggravated by the relevant hostility.
- Where the element of hostility is core to the offending, the aggravation will be higher than where it plays a lesser role.
Section 66 of the Sentencing Code states:
Hostility (1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence which is aggravated by—
(a) racial hostility,
(b) religious hostility,
(c) hostility related to disability,
(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or
(e) hostility related to transgender identity.
This is subject to subsection (3). (2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by hostility of any of those types as an aggravating factor, and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) So far as it relates to racial and religious hostility, this section does not apply in relation to an offence under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated offences). (4) For the purposes of this section, an offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (1) if—
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,
(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,
(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,
(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be)
(v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or
(b) the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by—
(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,
(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,
(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,
(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)
(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.
(5) For the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), it is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph. (6) In this section—
(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;
(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;
(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;
(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;
(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.
Other aggravating factors:
- Offence committed in domestic context
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Refer to the Domestic abuse - overarching principles guideline
- Victim isolated and unable to seek assistance
- Offence was committed against person providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services to the public
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
This reflects:
- the fact that people in public facing roles are more exposed to the possibility of harm and consequently more vulnerable and/or
- the fact that someone is working in the public interest merits the additional protection of the courts.
This applies whether the victim is a public or private employee or acting in a voluntary capacity.
Care should be taken to avoid double counting where the statutory aggravating factor relating to emergency workers or to those providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services to the public applies.
- History of violence or abuse towards victim by offender
- Presence of children
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- This reflects the psychological harm that may be caused to those who witnessed the offence.
- The presence of one or more children may in some situations make the primary victim more vulnerable – for example an adult may be less able to resist the offender if concerned about the safety or welfare of children present.
- When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
- Gratuitous degradation of victim
- Abuse of trust or power
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- A close examination of the facts is necessary and a clear justification should be given if abuse of trust is to be found.
- In order for an abuse of trust to make an offence more serious the relationship between the offender and victim(s) must be one that would give rise to the offender having a significant level of responsibility towards the victim(s) on which the victim(s) would be entitled to rely.
- Abuse of trust may occur in many factual situations. Examples may include relationships such as teacher and pupil, parent and child, employer and employee, professional adviser and client, or carer (whether paid or unpaid) and dependant. It may also include ad hoc situations such as a late-night taxi driver and a lone passenger. These examples are not exhaustive and do not necessarily indicate that abuse of trust is present.
- Additionally an offence may be made more serious where an offender has abused their position to facilitate and/or conceal offending.
- Where an offender has been given an inappropriate level of responsibility, abuse of trust is unlikely to apply.
- Any steps taken to prevent the victim reporting an incident, obtaining assistance and/or from assisting or supporting the prosecution
- Commission of offence whilst under the influence of alcohol/drugs
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
The fact that an offender is voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence will tend to increase the seriousness of the offence provided that the intoxication has contributed to the offending.
This applies regardless of whether the offender is under the influence of legal or illegal substance(s).
In the case of a person addicted to drugs or alcohol the intoxication may be considered not to be voluntary, but the court should have regard to the extent to which the offender has sought help or engaged with any assistance which has been offered or made available in dealing with the addiction.
An offender who has voluntarily consumed drugs and/or alcohol must accept the consequences of the behaviour that results, even if it is out of character.
- Offence committed whilst on licence or post sentence supervision
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- An offender who is subject to licence or post sentence supervision is under a particular obligation to desist from further offending.
- The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of a licence or order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
- Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of a licence or order regard should be had to totality.
- Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
- Failure to comply with current court orders
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- Commission of an offence while subject to a relevant court order makes the offence more serious.
- The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of an order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
- Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of an order regard should be had to totality
- Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
- No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
- First time offenders usually represent a lower risk of reoffending. Reoffending rates for first offenders are significantly lower than rates for repeat offenders. In addition, first offenders are normally regarded as less blameworthy than offenders who have committed the same crime several times already. For these reasons first offenders receive a mitigated sentence.
- Where there are previous offences but these are old and /or are for offending of a different nature, the sentence will normally be reduced to reflect that the new offence is not part of a pattern of offending and there is therefore a lower likelihood of reoffending.
- When assessing whether a previous conviction is ‘recent’ the court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it.
- Previous convictions are likely to be ‘relevant’ when they share characteristics with the current offence (examples of such characteristics include, but are not limited to: dishonesty, violence, abuse of position or trust, use or possession of weapons, disobedience of court orders). In general the more serious the previous offending the longer it will retain relevance.
- Remorse
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
The court will need to be satisfied that the offender is genuinely remorseful for the offending behaviour in order to reduce the sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).
Lack of remorse should never be treated as an aggravating factor.
Remorse can present itself in many different ways. A simple assertion of the fact may be insufficient.
The court should be aware that the offender’s demeanour in court or the way they articulate their feelings of remorse may be affected by, for example:
- nervousness
- a lack of understanding of the system
- mental disorder
- learning disabilities
- communication difficulties (including where English is not their first language)
- a belief that they have been or will be discriminated against
- peer pressure to behave in a certain way because of others present
- age and/or a lack of maturity etc.
If a PSR has been prepared it may provide valuable assistance in this regard.
Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
- Positive character and/or exemplary conduct (regardless of previous convictions)
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Evidence that an offender has demonstrated a positive side to their character may reduce the sentence.
This factor may apply whether or not the offender has previous convictions.
However:
- This factor is less likely to be relevant where the offending is very serious
- Where an offender has used their positive character or status to facilitate or conceal the offending it could be treated as an aggravating factor.
- History of significant violence or abuse towards the offender by the victim
- Age and/or lack of maturity (which may be applicable to offenders aged 18-25)
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Where a person has committed the offence under the age of 18, regard should be had to the overarching guideline for sentencing children and young people. That guideline may also be relevant to offending by young adults.
Age and/or lack of maturity can affect:
- the offender’s responsibility for the offence and
- the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence.
The emotional and developmental age of an offender is of at least equal importance to their chronological age (if not greater).
In particular young adults (typically aged 18-25) are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to:
- evaluate the consequences of their actions
- limit impulsivity
- limit risk taking
Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers.
Immaturity can also result from atypical brain development. Environment plays a role in neurological development and factors such as adverse childhood experiences including deprivation and/or abuse may affect development.
An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with custody and therefore may be more susceptible to self-harm in custody.
An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with the requirements of a community order without appropriate support.
There is a greater capacity for change in immature offenders and they may be receptive to opportunities to address their offending behaviour and change their conduct.
Many young people who offend either stop committing crime, or begin a process of stopping, in their late teens and early twenties. Therefore a young adult’s previous convictions may not be indicative of a tendency for further offending.
Where the offender is is care experienced or a care leaver the court should enquire as to any effect a sentence may have on the offender’s ability to make use of support from the local authority. (Young adult care leavers are entitled to time limited support. Leaving care services may change at the age of 21 and cease at the age of 25, unless the young adult is in education at that point). See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 1.16 and 1.17).
Where an offender has turned 18 between the commission of the offence and conviction the court should take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence was committed, but applying the purposes of sentencing adult offenders. See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3).
When considering a custodial or community sentence for a young adult the Probation Service should address these issues in a PSR.
- Mental disorder or learning disability, where not linked to the commission of the offence
Effective from: 01 October 2020
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Refer to the Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline.
Note in particular paragraph 5 for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic offenders.
- Sole or primary carer for dependent relative(s)
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered. See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.
For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
Where custody is unavoidable consideration of the impact on dependants may be relevant to the length of the sentence imposed and whether the sentence can be suspended.
For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less weight.
When imposing a community sentence on an offender with primary caring responsibilities the effect on dependants must be considered in determining suitable requirements.
The court should ensure that it has all relevant information about dependent children before deciding on sentence.
When an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, the court must consider whether proper arrangements have been made for the care of any dependent children and if necessary consider adjourning sentence for this to be done.
When considering a community or custodial sentence for an offender who has, or may have, caring responsibilities the court should ask the Probation Service to address these issues in a PSR.
Useful information can be found in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (see in particular Chapter 6 paragraphs 119 to 125)
- Pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
When considering a custodial or community sentence for a pregnant or postnatal offender (someone who has given birth in the previous 12 months) the Probation Service should be asked to address the issues below in a pre-sentence report. If a suitable pre-sentence report is not available, sentencing should normally be adjourned until one is available.
When sentencing a pregnant or postnatal woman, relevant considerations may include:
- the medical needs of the offender including her mental health needs
- any effect of the sentence on the physical and mental health of the offender
- any effect of the sentence on the child
The impact of custody on an offender who is pregnant or postnatal can be harmful for both the offender and the child including by separation, especially in the first two years of life.
Access to a place in a prison Mother & Baby Unit is not automatic and when available, the court may wish to enquire for how long the place will be available.
Women in custody are likely to have complex health needs which may increase the risks associated with pregnancy for both the offender and the child. The NHS classifies all pregnancies in prison as high risk.
There may be difficulties accessing medical assistance or specialist maternity services in custody.
This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered. See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.
For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
Where immediate custody is unavoidable, all of the factors above may be relevant to the length of the sentence.
The court should address the issues above when giving reasons for the sentence.
- Determination and/or demonstration of steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Where offending is driven by or closely associated with drug or alcohol abuse (for example stealing to feed a habit, or committing acts of disorder or violence whilst drunk) a commitment to address the underlying issue (including where the offender has actively sought support but, for reasons outside their control, it has not been received) may justify a reduction in sentence. This will be particularly relevant where the court is considering whether to impose a sentence that focuses on rehabilitation.
Similarly, a commitment to address other underlying issues that may influence the offender’s behaviour (including where the offender has actively sought support but, for reasons outside their control, it has not been received) may justify the imposition of a sentence that focusses on rehabilitation.
The court will be assisted by a PSR in making this assessment.
- Serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- The court can take account of physical disability or a serious medical condition by way of mitigation as a reason for reducing the length of the sentence, either on the ground of the greater impact which imprisonment will have on the offender, or as a matter of generally expressed mercy in the individual circumstances of the case.
- However, such a condition, even when it is difficult to treat in prison, will not automatically entitle the offender to a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.
- There will always be a need to balance issues personal to an offender against the gravity of the offending (including the harm done to victims), and the public interest in imposing appropriate punishment for serious offending.
- A terminal prognosis is not in itself a reason to reduce the sentence even further. The court must impose a sentence that properly meets the aims of sentencing even if it will carry the clear prospect that the offender will die in custody. The prospect of death in the near future will be a matter considered by the prison authorities and the Secretary of State under the early release on compassionate grounds procedure (ERCG).
- But, an offender’s knowledge that he will likely face the prospect of death in prison, subject only to the ERCG provisions, is a factor that can be considered by the sentencing judge when determining the sentence that it would be just to impose.
- Difficult and/or deprived background or personal circumstances
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
The court may be assisted by a pre-sentence report in assessing whether there are factors in the offender’s background or current personal circumstances which may be relevant to sentencing. Such factors may be relevant to:
- the offender’s responsibility for the offence and/or
- the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Courts should consider that different groups within the criminal justice system have faced multiple disadvantages which may have a bearing on their offending. Such disadvantages include but are not limited to:
- experience of discrimination
- negative experiences of authority
- early experience of loss, neglect or abuse
- early experience of offending by family members
- being care experienced or a care leaver
- negative influences from peers
- difficulties relating to the misuse of drugs and/or alcohol (but note: being voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence is an aggravating factor)
- low educational attainment
- insecure housing
- mental health difficulties
- poverty
- direct or indirect victim of domestic abuse
There are a wide range of personal experiences or circumstances that may be relevant to offending behaviour. The Equal Treatment Bench Book contains useful information on social exclusion and poverty (see in particular Chapter 11, paragraphs 58 to 71). The Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline may also be of relevance.
- Prospects of or in work, training or education
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered. See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.
Where an offender is in, or has a realistic prospect of starting, work, education or training this may indicate a willingness to rehabilitate and desist from future offending.
Similarly, the loss of employment, education or training opportunities may have a negative impact on the likelihood of an offender being rehabilitated or desisting from future offending.
The court may be assisted by a pre-sentence report in assessing the relevance of this factor to the individual offender.
The absence of work, training or education should never be treated as an aggravating factor.
The court may ask for evidence of employment, training etc or the prospects of such, but should bear in mind any reasonable practical difficulties an offender may have in providing this.
For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less (if any) weight.
Step 3 – Aggravated offences
SECTION 29 RACIALLY OR RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED OFFENCES
Having determined the category of the basic offence to identify the sentence of a non-aggravated offence, the court should now consider the level of racial or religious aggravation involved and apply an appropriate uplift to the sentence in accordance with the guidance below. The following is a list of factors which the court should consider to determine the level of aggravation. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different levels of aggravation, the court should balance these to reach a fair assessment of the level of aggravation present in the offence.
Maximum sentence for the racially or religiously aggravated offence is 7 years’ custody
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors already taken into account in assessing the level of harm at step one
|
HIGH LEVEL OF RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS AGGRAVATION |
SENTENCE UPLIFT |
|
Increase the length of custodial sentence if already considered for the basic offence or consider a custodial sentence, if not already considered for the basic offence.
|
|
MEDIUM LEVEL OF RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS AGGRAVATION |
SENTENCE UPLIFT |
|
Consider a significantly more onerous penalty of the same type or consider a more severe type of sentence than for the basic offence.
|
|
LOW LEVEL OF RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS AGGRAVATION |
SENTENCE UPLIFT |
|
Consider a more onerous penalty of the same type identified for the basic offence.
|
The sentencer should state in open court that the offence was aggravated by reason of race or religion, and should also state what the sentence would have been without that element of aggravation.
Step 4 – Consider any factors which indicate a reduction for assistance to the prosecution
The court should take into account section 74 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentence for assistance to prosecution) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.
Step 5 – Reduction for guilty pleas
The court should take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea in accordance with section 73 of the Sentencing Code and the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea guideline.
Step 6 – Dangerousness
The court should consider whether having regard to the criteria contained in Chapter 6 of Part 10 of the Sentencing Code it would be appropriate to impose an extended sentence (sections 266 and 279).
Step 7 – Totality principle
If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, or where the offender is already serving a sentence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the overall offending behaviour in accordance with the Totality guideline.
Step 8 – Compensation and ancillary orders
n all cases, the court should consider whether to make compensation and/or other ancillary orders. The court must give reasons if it decides not to order compensation (Sentencing Code, s.55).
Step 9 – Reasons
Section 52 of the Sentencing Code imposes a duty to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, the sentence.
Step 10 – Consideration for time spent on bail (tagged curfew)
The court must consider whether to give credit for time spent on bail in accordance with section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 325 of the Sentencing Code.
Annex B: List of Consultation questions
Question 1: What is your name?
Question 2: What is your email address?
Question 3: Are you answering as an individual? If so, are you happy for your name to be included in the consultation response document?
Question 4: If you are answering on behalf of an organisation, group or bench, please provide the name of the organisation, group or bench.
Question 5: Do you have any comments on the proposed culpability factors?
Question 6: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age or ethnicity?
Question 7: Do you have any comments on the proposed harm factors?
Question 8: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age or ethnicity?
Question 9: Do you have any comments on the proposed sentence levels?
Question 10: Do you have any comments on the proposed aggravating factors?
Question 11: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age, or ethnicity?
Question 12: Do you have any comments on the proposed mitigating factors?
Question 13: Are there any factors you consider could unfairly impact certain groups in respect of (for example) sex, age or ethnicity?
Question 14: Do you have any other comments on the proposed guideline that have not been covered elsewhere?