Supplying, or offering to supply, a psychoactive substance, Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (sections 5(1) or 5(2)) Possession of psychoactive substance with intent to supply, Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (section 7(1)) Triable either way Maximum: 7 years’ custody Offence range: Band B Fine – 6 years’ custody User guide for this offence
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.
Step 1 – Determine the offence category
The court should determine the offender’s culpability (role) and the harm caused with reference to the tables below. In assessing culpability, the sentencer should weigh up all the factors of the case to determine role. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different role categories, or where the level of the offender’s role is affected by the scale of the operation, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender’s culpability.
Culpability demonstrated by the offender’s role
One or more of these characteristics may demonstrate the offender’s role. These lists are not exhaustive.
Leading role:
- Directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale
- Substantial links to, and influence on, others in a chain
- Close links to original source
- Expectation of substantial financial or other advantage
- Uses business as cover
- Abuses a position of trust or responsibility
- Exploitation of children and/or vulnerable persons to assist in the offending
- Exercising control over the home of another person for the purposes of the offending
Significant role:
- Operational or management function within a chain
- Involves others in the operation whether by pressure, influence, intimidation or reward
- Expectation of significant financial or other advantage (save where this advantage is limited to meeting the offender’s own habit), whether or not operating alone
- Some awareness and understanding of scale of operation
Lesser role:
- Performs a limited function under direction
- Engaged by pressure, coercion, intimidation
- Involvement through naivety/exploitation
- No influence on those above in a chain
- Very little, if any, awareness or understanding of the scale of operation
- Expectation of limited, if any, financial or other advantage (including meeting the offender’s own habit)
Harm
In assessing harm, the sentencer should consider the factors below. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different harm categories the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of harm. Where evidence is available as to the potential effects of the substance and harm likely to be caused by those effects, the court should consider whether this impacts the category of harm. Where the harm is very great, or very small, this may lead the court to move the starting point for the offence up or down within the category range, or to place the offence in a higher or lower category than that indicated by the other factors listed.
Category 1
- Large quantity indicative of commercial-scale operation
- Supply in a custodial institution
Category 2
- Supply directly to users
Category 3
- Very small quantity
Step 2 – Starting point and category range
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. A case of particular gravity, reflected by multiple features of culpability or harm in step one, could merit upward adjustment from the starting point before further adjustment for aggravating or mitigating features, set out below.
| LEADING ROLE | SIGNIFICANT ROLE | LESSER ROLE | |
| Category 1 |
Starting point 4 years’ custody |
Starting point 2 years’ custody |
Starting point 1 year’s custody |
|
Category range 3 – 6 years’ custody |
Category range 1 – 3 years’ 6 months’ custody |
Category range 26 weeks’ – 2 years’ custody |
|
| Category 2 |
Starting point 2 years’ custody |
Starting point 1 year’s custody |
Starting point High level community order |
|
Category range 1 – 3 years’ 6 months’ custody |
Category range 26 weeks’ – 2 years’ custody |
Category range Low level community order – 26 weeks’ custody |
|
| Category 3 |
Starting point 1 year’s custody |
Starting point High level community order |
Starting point Low level community order |
|
Category range 26 weeks’ – 2 years’ custody |
Category range Low level community order – 26 weeks’ custody |
Category range Band B fine – medium level community order |
| Starting point | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Fine Band A | 50% of relevant weekly income | 25 – 75% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band B | 100% of relevant weekly income | 75 – 125% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band C | 150% of relevant weekly income | 125 – 175% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band D | 250% of relevant weekly income | 200 – 300% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band E | 400% of relevant weekly income | 300 – 500% of relevant weekly income |
| Fine Band F | 600% of relevant weekly income | 500 – 700% of relevant weekly income |
- The court should determine the appropriate level of fine in accordance with this guideline and section 125 of the Sentencing Code, which requires that the fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence and that the court must take into account the financial circumstances of the offender.
- Where possible, if a financial penalty is imposed, it should remove any economic benefit the offender has derived through the commission of the offence including:
- avoided costs;
- operating savings;
- any gain made as a direct result of the offence.
- The fine should meet, in a fair and proportionate way, the objectives of punishment, deterrence and the removal of gain derived through the commission of the offence; it should not be cheaper to offend than to comply with the law.
- In considering economic benefit, the court should avoid double recovery.
- Where the means of the offender are limited, priority should be given to compensation (where applicable) over payment of any other financial penalty.
- Where it is not possible to calculate or estimate the economic benefit, the court may wish to draw on information from the enforcing authorities about the general costs of operating within the law.
- When sentencing organisations the fine must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to comply with the law. The court should ensure that the effect of the fine (particularly if it will result in closure of the business) is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
- Obtaining financial information: It is for the offender to disclose to the court such data relevant to their financial position as will enable it to assess what they can reasonably afford to pay. If necessary, the court may compel the disclosure of an individual offender’s financial circumstances pursuant to section 35 of the Sentencing Code. In the absence of such disclosure, or where the court is not satisfied that it has been given sufficient reliable information, the court will be entitled to draw reasonable inferences as to the offender’s means from evidence it has heard and from all the circumstances of the case. In setting a fine, the court may conclude that the offender is able to pay any fine imposed unless the offender has supplied financial information to the contrary.
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.
Factors increasing seriousness
Statutory aggravating factors:
- Previous convictions, having regard to a) nature of the offence to which condition relates and relevance to current offence; and b) time elapsed since 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
- In connection with the offence, the offender used a courier who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was aged under 18 (except where taken into account at Step 1)
- The offence was committed on or in the vicinity of school premises at a relevant time
- The offence was committed in a custodial institution
- Offence committed 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:
- Targeting of any premises where children or other vulnerable persons are likely to be present
- Exposure of psychoactive substance user to the risk of serious harm, for example, through the method of production/mixing of the substance
- Exposure of those involved in dealing in the psychoactive substance to the risk of serious harm, for example through method of transporting the substance
- Exposure of third parties to the risk of serious harm
- Attempts to conceal or dispose of evidence, where not charged separately
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.
- Presence of others, especially children and/or non-users
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.
- Presence of weapons, where not charged separately
- High purity
- 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.
- Offence committed 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.
- Established evidence of 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.
- Deliberate use of sophisticated methods, including encrypted communications or similar technologies, to facilitate the commission of the offence and/or avoid or impede detection
There may be exceptional local circumstances that arise which may lead a court to decide that prevalence of psychoactive substance offending should influence sentencing levels. The pivotal issue in such cases will be the harm caused to the community. It is essential that the court before taking account of prevalence:
- has supporting evidence from an external source, for example, Community Impact Statements, to justify claims that psychoactive substance offending is prevalent in their area, and is causing particular harm in that community; and
- is satisfied that there is a compelling need to treat the offence more seriously than elsewhere.
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
- Involvement due to pressure, intimidation or coercion falling short of duress, except where already taken into account at step one.
- Mistaken belief of the offender regarding the type of substance, taking into account the reasonableness of such belief in all the circumstances
- Isolated incident
- Low purity
- No previous convictions or no relevant or 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
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, and the offender’s demeanour in court could be misleading, due to nervousness, a lack of understanding of the system, a belief that they have been or will be discriminated against, peer pressure to behave in a certain way because of others present, a lack of maturity etc. If a PSR has been prepared it may provide valuable assistance in this regard.
- Good character and/or exemplary conduct
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
This factor may apply whether or not the offender has previous convictions. Evidence that an offender has demonstrated positive good character through, for example, charitable works may reduce the sentence.
However, this factor is less likely to be relevant where the offending is very serious. Where an offender has used their good character or status to facilitate or conceal the offending it could be treated as an aggravating factor.
- Determination and/or demonstration of steps having been taken to address addiction or offending behaviour
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 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 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 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.
- Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender
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
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 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
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 relatives
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
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.
In addition when sentencing an offender who is pregnant relevant considerations may include:
- any effect of the sentence on the health of the offender and
- any effect of the sentence on the unborn child
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 131 to 137)
- Offender’s vulnerability was exploited
Step 3 – Consider any factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance to the prosecution
The court should take into account sections 73 and 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (assistance by defendants: reduction or review of sentence) 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 4 – Reduction for guilty pleas
The court should take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea in accordance with section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the guideline for Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea (where first hearing is on or after 1 June 2017, or first hearing before 1 June 2017). In circumstances where an appropriate custodial sentence of 7 years falls to be imposed under section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (third Class A drug trafficking offences), the court may impose any sentence in accordance with this guideline which is not less than 80 per cent of the appropriate custodial period.
Step 5 – 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 offending behaviour. See Totality guideline.
Step 6 – Confiscation and ancillary orders
In all cases, the court is required to consider confiscation where the Crown invokes the process or where the court considers it appropriate. It should also consider whether to make ancillary orders.
Step 7 – Reasons
Section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a duty to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, the sentence.
Step 8 – Consideration for time spent on bail
The court must consider whether to give credit for time spent on bail in accordance with section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.