Individuals: Breach of food safety and food hygiene regulations

Very high

Where the offender intentionally breached, or flagrantly disregarded, the law

High

Actual foresight of, or wilful blindness to, risk of offending but risk nevertheless taken

Medium

Offence committed through act or omission which a person exercising reasonable care would not commit

Low

Offence committed with little fault, for example, because:

• significant efforts were made to address the risk although they were inadequate on this occasion
• there was no warning/circumstance indicating a risk to food safety
• failings were minor and occurred as an isolated incident

Category 1

• Serious adverse effect(s) on individual(s) and/or having a widespread impact
• High risk of an adverse effect on individual(s) – including where supply was to persons that are vulnerable

Category 2

• Adverse effect on individual(s) (not amounting to Category 1)
• Medium risk of an adverse effect on individual(s) or low risk of serious adverse effect
• Regulator and/or legitimate industry substantially undermined by offender’s activities
• Relevant authorities unable to trace products in order to investigate risks to health, or are otherwise inhibited in identifying or addressing risks to health
• Consumer misled regarding food’s compliance with religious or personal beliefs

Category 3

• Low risk of an adverse effect on individual(s)
• Public misled about the specific food consumed, but little or no risk of actual adverse effect on individual(s)

Statutory aggravating factors

• Previous 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 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.

  1. Previous convictions are considered at step two in the Council’s offence-specific guidelines.
  2. 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.
  3. Previous convictions are normally of relevance to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
   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
• 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.  

Other aggravating factors include:

• Motivated by financial gain

  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

  • Where an offence (which is not one which by its nature is an acquisitive offence) has been committed wholly or in part for financial gain or the avoidance of cost, this will increase the seriousness.
  • Where the offending is committed in a commercial context for financial gain or the avoidance of costs, this will normally indicate a higher level of culpability.
    • examples would include, but are not limited to, dealing in unlawful goods, failing to disclose relevant matters to an authority or regulator, failing to comply with a regulation or failing to obtain the necessary licence or permission in order to avoid costs.
    • offending of this type can undermine legitimate businesses.
  • See the guidance on fines if considering a financial penalty.

   

• Deliberate concealment of illegal nature of activity
• Established evidence of wider/community impact

  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 factor should increase the sentence only where there is clear evidence of wider harm not already taken into account elsewhere. A community impact statement will assist the court in assessing the level of impact.
  • For issues of prevalence see the separate guidance below:

  Prevalence

  • Sentencing levels in offence specific guidelines take account of collective social harm. Accordingly offenders should normally be sentenced by straightforward application of the guidelines without aggravation for the fact that their activity contributed to a harmful social effect upon a neighbourhood or community.
  • It is not open to a sentencer to increase a sentence for prevalence in ordinary circumstances or in response to a personal view that there is 'too much of this sort of thing going on in this area'.
  • First, there must be evidence provided to the court by a responsible body or by a senior police officer.
  • Secondly, that evidence must be before the court in the specific case being considered with the relevant statements or reports having been made available to the Crown and defence in good time so that meaningful representations about that material can be made.
  • Even if such material is provided, a sentencer will only be entitled to treat prevalence as an aggravating factor if satisfied
    • that the level of harm caused in a particular locality is significantly higher than that caused elsewhere (and thus already inherent in the guideline levels);
    • that the circumstances can properly be described as exceptional; and
    • that it is just and proportionate to increase the sentence for such a factor in the particular case being sentenced.
• Breach of any court order

  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.

• Obstruction of justice

  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 more sophisticated, extensive or persistent the actions after the event, the more likely it is to increase the seriousness of the offence.

  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 lack of maturity when considering the significance of such conduct.

  Where any such actions are the subject of separate charges, this should be taken into account when assessing totality.

• Poor food safety or hygiene record
• Refusal of free advice or training

• 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.
• Steps voluntarily taken to remedy problem
• High level of co-operation with the investigation, beyond that which will always be expected

  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

  Assisting or cooperating with the investigation and /or making pre-court admissions may ease the effect on victims and witnesses and save valuable police time justifying a reduction in sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).

• Good food safety/hygiene record
• Self-reporting, co-operation and acceptance of responsibility

  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

  Where an offender has self-reported to the authorities, particularly in circumstances where the offence may otherwise have gone undetected, this should reduce the sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).

• 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.

   

• Mental disorder or learning disability, where 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.

• 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.
• 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.

• Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives

  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.

• 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.