7. References
Baumeister, R. F., et al. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265 (viewed 31 October 2023).
Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition, 2nd ed. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company (viewed 31 October 2023).
Fisher, D. L., et al. (1989). Minimizing the Time to Search Visual Displays: The Role of Highlighting Human Factors, 31(2), 167-182 (viewed 31 October 2023).
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006 (viewed 31 October 2023).
Kingsburg, J. R., & Andre, A. D. (2004). A Comparison of Three-Level Web Menu Navigation Structures. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48(13), 1513-1517 (viewed 31 October 2023).
The Behavioural Insights Team. (2014) Four Simple Ways to Apply EAST Framework to Behavioural Insights. The Behavioural Insights Team (viewed 31 October 2023).
8. Annexes
Annex A: Case study scenarios used during in-person observation sessions
Scenario 1
Charges
- 1 x Harassment (section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997)
- 1 x Breach of a Community Protection Notice (section 48 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
- 1 x Criminal damage (section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971)
Plea
D (male, aged 34) pleaded guilty to the above three days before a trial was due to go ahead. After his arrest he was released on bail with a tagged curfew, which he has been on for 6 weeks.
The prosecution case
“D and his partner (V) had lived together on and off for five years and had a son who was coming up to his third birthday. They were known to be going through a rough patch, with D getting increasingly volatile and angry, accusing V of being unfaithful and failing to look after their child. Their rows could escalate loudly at any hour of night or day, and the police were called on a previous occasion when V alleged he had hit her repeatedly. The Police gave him a warning on that occasion. Further loud rows spilling out into the communal gardens led to them both receiving a Community Protection Warning last spring. While V abided by its terms, D’s ongoing loud behaviour (directed both to V and to neighbours) led to the imposition of a Community Protection Notice in July, requiring D to keep quiet within the vicinity of their address, and not to drink outside their block of flats.
As a result of yet another confrontation, D had gone to live temporarily with a friend, but he and V had kept in constant contact via WhatsApp. Some of those messages continued to make angry allegations, but at other times they spoke of their love for one another and for their son. At these times, both seemed to want a reconciliation.
However, one day last September, D sent a series of texts to V in which he again angrily accused her of infidelity and insisted that he was going to come home, whether she liked it or not. She told him to “get lost”, but later that evening he arrived outside the flat drunkenly shouting, calling her a “worthless f*cking slut” and threatening to kick the doors down. Their son was awoken by the shouting and saw V visibly upset, crying and shaking as she phoned the police. D managed to kick in the downstairs doors of the apartment block, just as the Police arrived. Upon arrest D was found with an empty whiskey bottle.
V has had the locks changed on their flat and moved in with her parents since the night of the incident and has only recently returned to her home. This has meant she has lost some cleaning work near to where they live.
The offender has a history of offending. He has two previous convictions for common assault in 2009 and 2014 for which he received a fine and a community order respectively. He also has a conviction for criminal damage for breaking the windscreen of a former partner in 2016 for which he received a community order. He has a previous conviction for possession of cannabis dating from 2012, for which he received a conditional discharge.
This is a category B2 offence, because the link between the offender’s mental state and his offending (on which the Defence will give more detail) cannot be convincingly demonstrated, and a B1 criminal damage offence because it caused serious distress to V. We urge the Bench to consider very carefully D’s history and the prospect that he may cause further harm and distress to V. Regardless of the decision on custody, we apply for compensation for the landlord’s doors amounting to £300.”
The defence case
“D understands the severity of what he has done and wants to change. We have evidence from friends and family that D’s alcoholism had intensified in recent months (he had been drinking all day on the day of the offending) and this was exacerbating a recurring condition of delirium. This led him to be paranoid, believing that others were plotting against him and trying to steal V and his son from him. He sometimes claimed to hear voices. He has developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from an incident two years ago when he was involved in a fight. An independent psychiatric report provided to the court confirms D meets the criteria for PTSD.
Since starting his relationship with V, he has not been convicted of any offence. This is a category C2 harassment offence, and a C2 criminal damage case, particularly by reason of the offender’s responsibility being substantially reduced by a mental disorder. His tendency to delirium means that he was not in his right mind at the time of the offending, and he has shown that he has the potential to be a loving partner and a caring father. Despite his behaviour, his son is close to him, is financially dependent on him, and would miss him were he to be sent to prison. V herself has withdrawn from the prosecution and has not given a victim personal statement. However, she now says that despite everything she wants him to return to the family home and help look after their son.
D wants to do his best to become sober and have some sort of relationship with his son and his partner.”
The pre-sentence report
D suffers a personality disorder and has delusions and dramatic mood swings. These are made worse by his drinking. He does have the potential to turn his life around with suitable support from family and friends.
Given his condition, even a very short custodial sentence could do more harm than good, and a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement attached is recommended.
Scenario 2
Charges
- 1 x Fear or provocation of violence (Section 4, Public Order Act 1986; section 31 Crime and Disorder Act 1998)
- 1 x Common assault (section 39, Criminal Justice Act 1988; section 1 Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018)
- 1 x Possession of a controlled drug (section 5, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971)
Plea
Defendant (‘C’), aged 35, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to the above.
The prosecution case
“C was drunk after attending the funeral of a close friend from the army. On his way home he visited a newsagent’s to purchase some cigarettes. Having paid for them he believed he had been short changed and began to argue with the shopkeeper. He became more and more aggressive as the shopkeeper insisted his change was correct and threatened to “smash [the shopkeeper’s] f*cking head in”.
He kicked a display and swept magazines and papers from the counter as he leant across it while calling the shopkeeper [racial slurs]. The shopkeeper feared for his physical safety and tried as hard as he could to barricade himself behind the counter. There were five or six other customers in the shop, including two young children, and they were all extremely frightened for their safety. The man continued to knock down stands, magazines, jars, bottles and cans for nearly five minutes. The incident was only stopped when the Police arrived, having been called by a customer. When a police officer tried to restrain him he punched him square in the face, causing some bruising and a split lip. After his arrest, police found a small packet of cannabis (later confirmed to be for his personal use) which he had quickly attempted to hide behind some cereal packets.
The victim’s personal statement from the shopkeeper told how he had since been very nervous of being in the shop on his own in the evenings. The incident has made him think of employing a security guard which he could not afford.
We ask for compensation to be paid to the victim for the damage to his shop and the stock which was ruined, amounting to £500.
The defence case
“C expressed remorse after the incident and has written to the shopkeeper to apologise, stating that his emotions had been ‘all over the place’ that day. He has no previous convictions. C’s employer has written a character reference stating that they were completely surprised and shocked to hear of the incident as C is usually very quiet and well mannered, and has never demonstrated any hostility to colleagues and friends from ethnic minorities.
This is a B1 disorderly behaviour case as it was spontaneous, he did not throw any objects and the incident was not particularly sustained. This is a B3 assault case, albeit aggravated by being committed towards a police officer.
C earns £2,000 per calendar month, from which he pays private rent.
The pre-sentence report
Since leaving the army three years ago, he has suffered flashbacks and nightmares, and his experiences have resulted in occasional inexplicable outbursts, though never any as bad as this and never to the point of requiring police intervention. He has self-medicated with alcohol and cannabis for a long time but is now seeking help for his substance abuse issues with a counsellor. A community order with an alcohol treatment programme would be appropriate.
Scenario 3
Charges
- 1 x Vehicle taking without consent (Section 12, Theft Act 1968)
- 1 x Handling stolen goods (Section 22, Theft Act 1968)
Plea
J (male, aged 22 years old) initially pled not guilty to both charges at the plea and trial preparation hearing. However, two days before the trial J changed his plea to not guilty.
The prosecution case
On the evening of Saturday 18th November 2021 at around 1900, J was alone and bored at his father’s property. He received a text message from a friend who he knew from school, asking to meet with other individuals for the evening, to drive around and “just cruise”. J got dressed and rode his bicycle to meet his friend (male, aged 21) and two other adult males (aged 31, and 27 years old). It is unclear how well J knew these two other individuals.
Upon arrival, J got into the back of a car with the three other males, and they drove around for some time, before driving past a service station around 2200. One of the other males stated “he’s on his own” (referring to the attendant in the service station), and that they should “give it a go”.
J and his accomplices parked around the corner from the service station and masked their faces whilst in the car. One of the accomplices had a hammer and masked his face with a balaclava. J and the other two males hid their faces using jumpers they had been wearing. J and his accomplices walked up to the service station. J stayed outside the service to act as a “lookout”, whilst the other three males entered the service station.
When J accomplices entered the store, they shouted at the service attendant, “Where is the safe? Give me the key!”. When the attendant advised them that he could not access the safe, he was kicked in the leg and had his pockets turned out before being grappled to the office and told to sit down. The victim was forced to open up the cigarette kiosk and put cigarettes into two black bags. One of the masked individuals also took the victim’s car keys.
When J’s accomplices exited the service station, one of them threw the victim’s car keys at J. The jumper J was wearing around his face, fell to the ground when he caught the car keys, which was captured by CCTV. J then used the alarm button to locate and open the victims’ car which was parked close to the service entrance.
J and one other accomplice carrying a black bag with stolen cigarettes, got into the victim’s car and drove off. The other two accomplices fled the scene using the car they had driven to the service station.
J and his accomplice drove around in the victim’s car, before abandoning the car near a train station. J then walked back alone to where he had left his bike earlier in the evening, carrying a bag with the stolen cigarettes. Whilst walking, he was stopped by police, who arrested him after inspecting his bag. The value of the stolen cigarettes was estimated to be around £1,500.
J has a history of acquisitive and motoring offences, including as a juvenile. At age 17, J was convicted of theft of a cycle in 2017, for which he received a caution. J was also convicted of shoplifting in 2018, for which he was given a youth supervision order. As an adult, J has been convicted of two counts of driving a motor vehicle taken without consent (2019 and 2020) and going equipped for theft (2021). J received fines and community orders for these offences.
J does not have any offences or convictions for serious or violent offences. However, when J was 16 years old, he was arrested for criminal property damage, at his mother’s home. At the time, J was living at his mother’s home with his step-father (at the time) and four younger siblings. J had an argument with his then step-father, which escalated into him “smashing up” furniture and breaking two windows. After this, J lived at his grandparents’ residence, and then later with this biological father.
J’s offences indicate an ongoing pattern of criminal behaviour and an escalation into involvement in more serious and violent offending. The bench is urged to consider the risk of future harm that J presents to the public.
The defence case
J acknowledges his offences and has expressed remorse for the offences he has been charged with, as well as the crimes of his accomplices on the night of 18th November 2021.
J was not involved in any violent behaviour, which was carried out by other individuals. Additionally, J was not the leader of the group involved in the crimes committed on the night in question. J did not know what he would be getting involved in when he initially met the other males in question. J’s offences were partially a result of the influences of other peers (two of whom were older than J), to engage in these offences.
J also had a difficult upbringing including financial hardship. His parents separated when he was around 5 years old. Since he was a child, J had been helping to look after his four younger siblings, as his mother has chronic mental health conditions (depression and anxiety). His mother has not been employed in over 15 years and has relied primarily on state benefits to provide for J and his siblings. J has attempted to support his siblings financially. This has led to him being influenced by anti-social peers, to engage in acquisitive offending, as means to help provide for his siblings.
J has also reported that he and his siblings had been physically and verbally abused by their step-father on multiple occasions, when he was a teenager. This is important context, and played a role in the altercation when police arrested J for criminal damage, at age 16.
J does not present an imminent risk of harm to other individuals, and incarceration may do more harm than good, as it further exposes J to anti-social individuals and deprives him of the opportunities to engage in pro-social behaviours. J would benefit from community or supervision order to distance himself from any anti-social individuals, and to help desist from future offending.
The pre-sentence report
J accepts responsibility for his offending behaviour and described his actions as “bad” and stupid. He stated he committed these offences as he wanted to “join in” with his mates, and he liked the “rush”.
Concerningly, he also described committing the offences felt “normal” to him. He also displays limited understanding of the impact of stealing the victim’s car. His current offences represent a concerning pattern of similar offending, demonstrating reckless and risk-taking behaviour.
Scenario 4
Charges
- 1 x Speeding (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s.89(1))
- 1 x Dangerous driving (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.2)
- 1 x Drug driving (Road Traffic Act 1988, s5A)
Plea
M (male, aged 32 years old) pled guilty to all offences at the earliest possible opportunity.
The prosecution case
On Friday 13th January 2022 around 1400, M had driven to a friend’s place with three other adult friends. M had been drinking alcohol and had also been smoking marijuana at the premises.
At around 1900, M received a call from an NHS emergency number informing him his mother had been taken to A&E following a fall at her home. M’s mother was not in a critical condition at the time. M told his friends he was going to leave to see his mother, though he was discouraged from doing so after his friends raised concerns he was not fit to drive. As his friends had also been drinking alcohol and consuming marijuana, they were also not fit to drive him.
M began driving towards the hospital his mother had been admitted to. M’s visibility was likely also limited by the fact it was raining that night. Nonetheless, M began speeding through residential roads and when on the motorway. On the motorway, M drove past a speed camera which identified he had been driving 22 mph over the motorway speed limit (70 mph).
Just after M turned off the motorway, he nearly crashed into a car in the lane next to him. The other driver had to swerve to avoid being hit by M, and narrowly avoided crashing into a barrier on the side of the road. A police officer happened to be driving past and became concerned at M’s driving behaviour.
The police officer signalled to M to pull over, and M complied. When the officer approached M and began talking to him, he suspected M was under the influence of substances. M denied being under the influence and informed the officer his mother had been in an accident and he needed to get to hospital, as he was her sole emergency contact.
The police officer administered a breath test to M, who complied. M was found to be over the legal limit for alcohol (37 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath). M was taken to a local police station and charged with dangerous driving.
M also provided a blood sample to test for alcohol or substances. The results later confirmed cannabis had been identified in M’s sample. However, M was just under the legal blood alcohol limit (79 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood).
M has two previous convictions. In 2016 M was convicted of driving whilst uninsured, for which he received a fine. In 2019 he was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance – class B (cannabis).
The defence case
M understands and accepts responsibility for his offences, as evidenced by entering a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. M’s offences were partially a result of his genuine concern for his mother’s wellbeing. When M was initially informed about his mother being taken to A&E, the NHS staff member was not able to say whether M’s mother was in a critical condition – this was only confirmed later. M believed the situation to be a medical emergency and wanted to help his mother, being her only child, and having no other close relatives.
M had admitted to having consumed alcohol and cannabis on the night of the offence. However, he was found to be under the legal blood alcohol limit. M also did not consume a significant amount of cannabis in the night in question, and states he infrequently consumes marijuana, and only in “social” settings.
M’s offences were due to the unique and concerning health situation regarding his mother, and does not form part of a pattern of serious offending. M is willing to undertake mandatory drug and alcohol treatment courses, and be subject to drug and alcohol monitoring, to help prevent any such offences occurring again.
The pre-sentence report
M was open in discussing this offence in detail. He evidenced what appeared to be genuine remorse for his actions and a good awareness around why the offence occurred and how his behaviours, including drinking alcohol and taking substances, contributed to his offending.
M did not demonstrate immaturity which would mitigate his thinking around the offence. Rather, he seems to have engaged in reckless and dangerous driving behaviours, partially due to being disinhibited by consuming substances. M appears to have been aware at the time of the offence, that his judgement may have been affected by the substances he had consumed – and chose to drive anyway.
Given M’s previous offences, a community order, with attending drug and alcohol interventions programmes may be appropriate to manage his risk.
Annex B: Case study scenarios used with circuit judges during virtual usability testing sessions
Activity 1
Imagine that you are making a sentencing decision for a case involving one count of Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another.
The case involves a 37 year old woman, who was found to be in possession of 150g of MDMA. She pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The evidence suggests that she was being pressured by her cousin to sell the MDMA to her friends. Her cousin expected to receive money in return, but there was no evidence to suggest that the woman herself would profit from the sale. It appeared to be an isolated incident and the woman has no previous convictions.
Activity 2
Imagine you are going to make a sentencing decision for a 31 year old male for one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm/unlawful wounding without intent (Section 20, GBH). The offender pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity and has no prior convictions.
In this case, the offender had been drinking at a pub with some friends watching a football match. Whilst smoking a cigarette outside the pub, he got into an argument with another patron, initially about which team the other patron supported. The argument escalated, and at one point the offender called the other patron a [racial slur]. The offender threw his glass at the other patron which caused him to fall over and hit his head against the sidewalk.
This resulted in the victim having a fractured skull, requiring extensive surgery. The victim has sustained long-term injuries to his mobility and cognitive functioning, however, is expected to be able to function comfortably on a day-to-day basis, after completing a full rehabilitation programme, lasting over a year.
Activity 3
You are now making a sentencing decision for another case involving one count of possession of an offensive weapon on education premises.
In this case a 19 year old male student was found to have a 6 inch serrated machete in his possession, whilst at school. The knife was found on his person but there was no evidence of intent to harm. The offender was 18 years old at the time of the offence.
The offender has no previous convictions and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. The pre-sentence report has suggested imposing a community order for the offender.
Activity 4
I’d like you to imagine you’re sentencing another case involving one count of Arson/criminal damage, reckless as to whether life endangered.
This case involves a 34 year old male, who initially entered a plea of not guilty at the pre-trial stage. He later changed his plea to guilty, after the first hearing of the trial.
The offender was found guilty of setting fire to an empty stable, connected to the house of his current partner – with her, and her child (aged four years old), inside the house. The offender and his partner had been going through a “rough patch”, with the offender temporarily living with a friend. However, he had still been in regular contact with his partner. Earlier on the day of the offence, he had argued with his partner, accusing her of infidelity.
The offender had previously received a community protection warning last year, as a result of arguing with his partner. The offender also has a previous conviction for harassment and criminal damage, received three years ago.
Activity 5
You are making a sentencing decision about a 22 year old male found guilty of one count of robbery, and one count of breaching of a community order.
The offender and three other accomplices robbed a convenience store, whilst wearing face coverings. There were four or five other customers in the shop, including a young child (aged six), and they were all extremely frightened for their safety. The offender had been holding a hammer which he used to threaten the cashier, though he did not harm anyone in the shop. The offender did not appear to be the leader within his group of accomplices.
The offender has two previous convictions. In 2019 he was convicted of taking a vehicle without consent, for which he received a community order. In August 2022 he was also convicted of shoplifting, for which he received a fine and community order (26 weeks) which is still in effect.
The offender pleaded not guilty throughout the trial and continues to maintain his innocence.
Activity 6
You are making a sentencing decision for a 47 year old male convicted of one count of indecent exposure.
The offender had been in his car near a park and had exposed his genitals to adult women walking past. The offender had also been masturbating in the car, though he did not appear to have followed or deliberately targeted any specific victims. The park area has playgrounds for children, though no children were present at the time of the offence.
The offender pleaded guilty to the offence at the earliest opportunity. The offender had one previous conviction received in 2009 for driving whilst uninsured, for which he received a fine and 6 penalty points.
Annex C: Case study scenarios used with magistrates during virtual usability testing sessions
Activity 1
Imagine you are making a sentencing decision for a 27 year old woman who has been charged with possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.5(3)).
She was found to be in possession of 100g of cannabis.
The woman’s statements and corresponding text message evidence suggest that she was being pressured by her cousin to sell the cannabis to her friends. Her cousin expected to receive money in return, but there was no evidence to suggest that the woman herself would profit from the sale. It appeared to be an isolated incident and the woman has no previous convictions.
She pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis with intent to supply, at the earliest opportunity.
Activity 2
Imagine you are making a sentencing decision for a man, aged 34, who has been charged with harassment (section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997).
The man has lived with his partner for years and their relationship had become increasingly volatile. The man began accusing his partner of cheating which led to them fighting. As a result of the relationship breakdown, the man temporarily went to live with a friend.
One evening, the man returned to his house and stood outside drunkenly sweating and calling his partner names. She told him to leave but he stayed and attempted to kick down the front door. His partner called the police and was visibly upset and shaken when they arrived. Upon arrest, the man was found with an empty whiskey bottle. The victim has since changed the locks.
The man does not have a history of offending. In this incident, the man pleaded guilty to the charge of harassment, at the earliest opportunity.
Activity 3
You are now making a sentencing decision for another case.
In this case a 19 year old female student has been charged with possession of an article with blade/point on education premises, Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 139A(1)).
The student told a friend that she had brought a knife to school. The friend reported this to a teacher and the teacher located the knife. It was a 4 inch kitchen knife and was found in the student’s bag. The student had not made any threats or suggestions that they intended to use the knife as a weapon.
They have no previous convictions. The offender initially entered a plea of not guilty at the pre-trial stage, though later changed her plea to guilty, after the first hearing of the trial.
Activity 4
You are making a sentencing decision about an 18 year old male who has been charged with careless driving (Road Traffic Act 1988, s.3) due to excessive speed.
The incident occurred at 3pm on a weekday. The man was pulled over by police in a residential area after they noticed he was driving above the speed limit and they saw him knock off the wing mirror of a parked car. He admitted to using his phone whilst driving.
The man pleaded guilty to this charge of careless driving at the earliest opportunity. He has had a driving licence for 1 year but already has 4 penalty points on his licence from a previous incident of speeding.
Activity 5
You are making a sentencing decision about a 38 year old male who has been charged with one count of going equipped for theft.
The man was reported to the police by a family member. Their conversations with the male led them to believe that he was planning on breaking into a neighbour’s house to steal jewellery. Police found him near the neighbour’s property with a crowbar in his possession.
The offender has three previous convictions: one for theft of a cycle received in 2017, for which he received a caution. In 2019, he was convicted of taking a vehicle without consent, for which he received a community order. In July 2022, he was also convicted of shoplifting, for which he received a fine and community order (26 weeks) which is still in effect.
The offender pleaded not guilty throughout the trial and continues to maintain his innocence.
Activity 6
You are making a sentencing decision about a 47 year old male convicted of voyeurism. The offender was arrested after police were called to a park, following reports a male in a nearby parked car, was exposing his genitals to adult women walking past. The male had been masturbating in the car, though he did not appear to have followed or deliberately targeted any specific victims. The park area has playgrounds for children, though no children were reported to be present at the time of the offence.
An independent psychiatric report identified the offender had a “borderline” IQ level, but was unable to conclude if the offender met the criteria for Intellectual Disability, given he had mixed levels of cognitive abilities. No other mental health conditions were identified for the offender.
The offender pleaded guilty to the offence at the earliest opportunity. The offender had one previous conviction received in 2009 for driving whilst uninsured, for which he received a fine and 6 penalty points.
Annex D: Interview schedule for participants who were not involved in virtual usability testing sessions
Introduction
My name is [Facilitator name] and I’m a researcher from the Behavioural Insights Team (aka BIT).
We are working together with the Sentencing Council, to explore how judges and magistrates use the sentencing guidelines, on the Sentencing Council’s website.
The Sentencing Council is interested in understanding how sentencers use the online version when making sentencing decisions, and how they can work to improve your experience of the guidelines.
Background
I’d like to ask you about your thoughts and experiences around how you interact with the online version of the sentencing guidelines, within your day-to-day role
We’re not looking to see how well you know the guidelines – rather, how well the layout and functionality of the guidelines, on the Sentencing Council’s website, best meets your needs in making sentencing decisions.
We’ll broadly be asking questions about your views on a few different areas on the sentencing guidelines. This includes:
- Access – how you get to the guidelines
- Searching & navigation – how you find relevant guidelines, and the information within the guidelines
- Use – how you generally use the guidelines
We have already run some user testing sessions on the guidelines with magistrates and judges, who have suggested some changes to improve the website. We will talk through some of the suggested changes to get your thoughts on these.
Before starting the session, I’d like to reiterate a few key points:
- The interview will be 45 minutes long
- Your participation is completely voluntary and you are welcome to stop at any time
- Your responses will not be identifiable to anyone outside of our research team – only the BIT research team will have access to raw data and personal information.
- Are you happy for me to record the interview?
Starting Recording of Session:
- Do you have any questions before we get started?
- I am going to start recording now
[Facilitator to begin recording] - For the sake of the recording, can you please state your name and confirm that you are happy to participate in the interview?
Rapport-building questions:
To start off with, I’d like to get you know you a bit better:
1. Could you tell me how long you’ve been a magistrate/judge?
2. Have you enjoyed working as a magistrate/judge?
Accessing guidelines
1. How do you get to the sentencing guidelines on the sentencing council’s website?
a. Are there any issues with this?
b. Is there anything you think could be improved to make it easier to get to the sentencing guidelines?
2. How easy is it for you to get to the explanatory materials and other resources on the Sentencing Council’s website?
Suggested improvements
1. [Magistrates Only]
What do you think about whether the link to the offence specific guidelines for the magistrates’ court on the Sentencing Council’s homepage, went directly to the offence specific guidelines, rather than the ‘Sentencing guidelines for use in magistrates’ courts’ page?
Searching guidelines
1. [Magistrates only]
How do you generally search for the offence specific guidelines you’re looking for, on the sentencing council website?
a. Do you search for the Act?
b. Do you search for any particular keywords?
c. Do you use whole words/phrases, or part of a word?
[Circuit judges only]
Do you use the drop down box for offence types to search for guidelines?
d. If not, why not? (awareness, ease etc)
e. Do you also use the search function?
i. If so, do you search by Act, or keywords?
2. How do you find the process of identifying the guideline you want, from the search results?
a. What works well/ less well? Why?
3. What do you think works well about the current search function?
a. Why?
4. What do you think could be improved about the search function?
a. Why?
5. Have you ever tried to search for overarching guidelines/principles or other materials (e.g. explanatory materials, fine calculators, pronouncement cards)
a. If so, how did you do this?
Suggested Improvements
1. What do you think about having the search results listed with separate columns showing the offence title, the corresponding Act and, and section of the Act?
2. What do you think about having a spell-check in the search bar?
3. Would you like to be able to search for explanatory materials, or other resources (e.g. pronouncement cards, fine calculators), similar to searching for offence specific guidelines?
Navigating guidelines
1. Is it easy for you to have multiple guidelines open at the same time?
a. Are there any challenges with navigating between different guidelines and/or explanatory materials?
b. Is there anything you think would make it easier for you to navigate between different guidelines and/or explanatory materials?
2. Do you use the ‘collections’ feature of the website to save and later access offence pages?
a. What do you like about it?
b. Is there anything about it that could be improved?
3. Do you know how to find specific information from the explanatory materials?
a. Could you give me an example?
4. Have you previously used the blue sidebar on the website?
a. Is it clear what the icons in the sidebar are?
b. How easy is it for you to get to the resources you want to access, using the blue sidebar?
c. Is there anything which might help make the links in the blue sidebar easier to navigate?
Suggested Improvements
1. What would using offence specific guidelines be like, if there was a small menu/contents table on the side of the page, which linked to different sections/steps of the guideline?
Using guidelines
1. When do you look at the relevant sentencing guidelines?
a. Ahead of a court session?
b. During court?
2. Are there any specific guidelines which you tend to use more, or would always like to have open to refer to, when sentencing?
a. Which guidelines?
3. Apart from the offence specific guidelines, what guidelines, or other resources on the sentencing guidelines webpage, do you look for the most?
4. Which steps within the offence specific guidelines do you use the most?
5. Which steps within the offence specific guidelines do you use the least?
6. Do you think the layout of offence specific guidelines are easy to use?
7. Is there anything you think would make it easier to find information within these guidelines?
8. Do you use the ‘drop down’ information listed in the aggravating/mitigating factors of the offence specific guidelines?
a. If not, why not?
b. Would you suggest changing anything about the dropdowns?
9. On a typical sitting day, how often would you say you refer to the overarching principles/guidelines?
10. Are there any overarching principles/guidelines you refer to, more than others?
11. Do you think the layout of overarching guidelines is easy to find the information you want?
12. Is there anything you think would make it easier to find information within these guidelines?
13. On a typical sitting day, how often would you refer to the explanatory materials?
a. Are there any explanatory materials you refer to commonly?
14. Do you think the layout of the explanatory materials is easy to find the information you want?
Suggested Improvements
1. For the offence specific guidelines, would you use a split-screen function, to see certain sections of an offence specific guidelines (e.g. culpability and harm factors, or the category tables)?
2. If the offence specific guidelines could automatically give you a category range, based on selecting specific harm and culpability levels, how would this change the way you use the guidelines?
3. How would it change using the guidelines, if you could select (or in some way note/highlight) which culpability, harm or aggravating/mitigating factors are relevant within an offence specific guideline?
4. If you could search for information within the offence specific or overarching guidelines (e.g. aggravating factors), would that make things easier or harder to find within a guideline?
a. What do you think about using “ctrl +F” to find keywords/phrases in the guidelines?
5. Would you like to be able to find specific information within the explanatory materials? (e.g. factors indicating whether it’s appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence)?
a. What do you think about using “ctrl +F” to find keywords/phrases in the guidelines?
Close
Overall, do you feel that the sentencing guidelines website meets your needs for making sentencing decisions?
- Why/why not?
- What works well/less well?
Before we finish, do you have anything else to add that we haven’t discussed?
Thank you for your time today, that’s all the questions we’d like to discuss for today’s session.
Please feel free to contact us via email, if you have any other feedback or suggestions which come to mind, or if you have any other questions about our research project.
Annex E: Interview schedule for participants who had previously taken part in virtual usability testing sessions
Introduction
My name is [Facilitator name] and I’m a researcher from the Behavioural Insights Team (aka BIT).
Today’s session is part of our work with the Sentencing Council, to explore how judges and magistrates use the online version of sentencing guidelines.
Background
For today, I’d like to ask you about your thoughts and experiences around how you interact with the online version of the sentencing guidelines, within your day-to-day role
We’re not looking to see how well you know the guidelines – rather, how well the layout and functionality of the guidelines, on the Sentencing Council’s website, best meets your needs in making sentencing decisions.
We’ll broadly be asking questions about your views on a few different areas on the sentencing guidelines. This includes
- Access – how you get to the guidelines
- Searching & navigation – how you find relevant guidelines, and the information within the guidelines
- Use – how you generally use the guidelines
We have already run some user testing sessions on the guidelines with magistrates and judges, who have suggested some changes to improve the website. We will talk through some of the suggested changes to get your thoughts on these.
Before starting the session, I’d like to reiterate a few key points:
- The interview will be 45 minutes long
- Your participation is completely voluntary and you are welcome to stop at any time
- Your responses will not be identifiable to anyone outside of our research team – only the BIT research team will have access to raw data and personal information.
- Are you happy for me to record the interview?
Starting Recording of Session:
- Do you have any questions before we get started?
- I am going to start recording now
[Facilitate to begin recording] - For the sake of the recording, can you please state your name and confirm that you are happy to participate in the interview?
Rapport-building questions:
To start off with, I’d like to get you know you a bit better :
1. Could you tell me how long you’ve been a magistrate/judge?
2. Have you enjoyed working as a magistrate/judge?
Accessing guidelines
I know we’ve previously looked at how you would get to the guidelines, but I’d like to ask a couple of quick questions about accessing the guidelines
1. Do you have any challenges with accessing the sentencing guidelines, when you need to make a sentencing decision?
a. What about when preparing for a sentencing case/court?
Suggested Improvements
1. [Magistrates Only]
What do you think about whether the link to the offence specific guidelines for the magistrates’ court on the Sentencing Council’s homepage, went directly to the offence specific guidelines, rather than the ‘Sentencing guidelines for use in magistrates’ courts’ page?
Searching guidelines
1. What do you think works well about the current search function?
a. Why?
2. What do you think could be done to improve the search function?
a. Why?
3. Have you ever tried to search for overarching guidelines/principles or other materials (e.g. explanatory materials, fine calculators, pronouncement cards)
a. If so, how did you do this?
b. What do you think works well/less well when searching for other materials?
c. What if anything, do you think could be done to improve the process of searching for overarching guidelines/principles or other materials (e.g. explanatory materials, fine calculators, pronouncement cards)
Suggested Improvements
1. What do you think about having the search results listed with separate columns showing the offence title, the corresponding Act and, and section of the Act?
2. What do you think about having a spell-check in the search bar?
3. Would you like to be able to search for explanatory materials, or other resources (e.g. pronouncement cards, fine calculators), similar to searching for offence specific guidelines?
Navigating guidelines
1. Is it easy for you to open multiple different guidelines?
2. Are there any challenges with navigating between different guidelines and/or explanatory materials ?
3. Is there anything you think would make it easier for you to navigate between different guidelines and/or explanatory materials?
4. Have you previously used the blue sidebar on the website?
a. Is it clear what the icons in the sidebar are?
b. How easy is it for you to get to the resources you want to access, using the blue sidebar?
c. Is there anything which might help make the links in the blue sidebar easier to navigate?
Suggested Improvements
1. What would using offence specific guidelines be like, if there was a small menu/contents table on the side of the page, which linked to different sections/steps of the guideline?
Using guidelines
1. Are there any specific guidelines which you tend to use more, or would always like to have open to refer to, when sentencing?
a. Which guidelines?
2. Apart from the offence specific guidelines, what guidelines, or other resources on the sentencing guidelines webpage, do you look for the most?
3. Which steps of the offence specific guidelines do you use the most? Why?
4. Which steps of the offence specific guidelines do you use the least? Why?
5. Do you think the layout of offence specific guidelines are easy to use?
6. Is there anything you think would make it easier to find information within these guidelines?
7. Would you suggest changing anything about the dropdowns?
8. On a typical sitting day, how often would you say you refer to the overarching principles/guidelines?
9. Are there any overarching principles/guidelines you refer to more than others?
10. Do you think the layout of overarching guidelines is easy to find the information you want?
11. Is there anything you think would make it easier to find information within these guidelines?
12. On a typical sitting day, how often would you refer to the explanatory materials?
a. Are there any explanatory materials you refer to commonly?
13. Do you think the layout of the explanatory materials makes it easy to find the information you want?
Suggested Improvements
1. For the offence specific guidelines, would you use a split-screen function, to see certain sections of an offence specific guidelines (e.g. culpability and harm factors, or the category tables)?
2. If the offence specific guidelines could automatically give you a category range, based on selecting specific harm and culpability levels, how would this change the way you use the guidelines?
3. How would it change using the guidelines, if you could select (or in some way note/highlight) which culpability, harm or aggravating/mitigating factors are relevant within an offence specific guideline?
4. If you could search for information within the offence specific or overarching guidelines (e.g. aggravating factors), would that make things easier or harder to find within a guideline?
a. What do you think about using “ctrl +F” to find keywords/phrases in the guidelines?
5. Would you like to be able to find specific information within the explanatory materials? (e.g. factors indicating whether it’s appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence)?
a. What do you think about using “ctrl +F” to find keywords/phrases in the guidelines?
Close
Overall, do you feel that the sentencing guidelines website meets your needs for making sentencing decisions?
- Why/why not?
- What works well/less well?
Before we finish, do you have anything else to add that we haven’t discussed?
Thank you for your time today, that’s all the questions we’d like to discuss for today’s session.
Please feel free to contact us via email, if you have any other feedback or suggestions which come to mind, or if you have any other questions about our research project.