Vehicle licence/registration fraud

Factors indicating higher culpability:

• Offence committed whilst on bail for other offences
• Failure to respond to previous sentences
• Offence was racially or religiously aggravated
• Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility to the victim based on his or her sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation)
• Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility based on the victim’s disability (or presumed disability)
• Previous conviction(s), particularly where a pattern of repeat offending is disclosed

  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
• Planning of an offence
• An intention to commit more serious harm than actually resulted from the offence
• Offenders operating in groups or gangs
• ‘Professional’ offending
• Commission of the offence for financial gain (where this is not inherent in the offence itself)
• High level of profit from the offence
• An attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence
• Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the offender’s behaviour
• Offence committed whilst on licence
• Offence motivated by hostility towards a minority group, or a member or members of it
• Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim(s)
• Commission of an offence while under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• Use of a weapon to frighten or injure victim
• Deliberate and gratuitous violence or damage to property, over and above what is needed to carry out the offence
• Abuse of power
• Abuse of a position of trust

Factors indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm:

• Multiple victims
• An especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended
• A sustained assault or repeated assaults on the same victim
• Victim is particularly vulnerable
• Location of the offence (for example, in an isolated place)
• Offence is committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public
• Presence of others e.g. relatives, especially children or partner of the victim
• Additional degradation of the victim (e.g. taking photographs of a victim as part of a sexual offence)
• In property offences, high value (including sentimental value) of property to the victim, or substantial consequential loss (e.g. where the theft of equipment causes serious disruption to a victim’s life or business)

Factors indicating lower culpability:

• A greater degree of provocation than normally expected
• Mental illness or disability
• Youth or age, where it affects the responsibility of the individual defendant
• The fact that the offender played only a minor role in the offence