I made reference in a recent blog post to Sentencing Council guidelines on the sentencing of mentally disordered defendants in criminal courts. They are worth reading if you’re trying to understand how a defendant’s mental health has bearing on decisions made about sentencing. It can affect how prison sentences are determined and the guideline covers in detail consideration around various kinds of orders under Part III MHA (the ‘criminal’ provisions). Crucially, these particular guidelines are supplementary to guidelines for the offence alleged and need to be read in conjunction with others.
There are general principles guidelines covering all sentencing for all issues and then the Sentencing Council issues guidelines on very many topics, but a summary of obvious ones includes the day-to-day volume offences in the UK of assault, shoplifting, burglary, harassment / stalking, general theft, speeding, drink-driving, etc. All those common offence guidelines can be quickly accessed on their website. But there are many more, covering all manner of weird and wonderful offences from abstracting electricity and bribery to coercive and controlling behaviour and dangerous dogs!
Specific guidelines for more serious offences can be accessed by using the search facility on the website, but they include –
- Manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility
- Manslaughter (unlawful act)
- Rape
- Rape of a child
- GBH with intent
- GBH without intent
There are many other guidelines – you can search for those relevant in a Crown Court and those relevant in the Magistrates’ Courts.
You may have heard in the recent sentencing in Nottingham, the judge made reference to the principle of totality. This is a guidelines in its own right – it relates the more complicated task of sentencing someone for more than one offence. Do you sentence consecutively (ie, three years for this and two years for that, but you serve all five years because you do them one at a time) or concurrently (three years for this and two years for that, but you serve three years because both sentences are served at the same time). There are problems with each approach – sentence consecutively and it may well be thought the overall total is excessive; sentence concurrently and you may have the opposite problem and the guidelines attempts to steer the judges through this quandry.
It does attempt to show, contrary to popular opinion, that thought has been put in to how judges should approach these matters and how there is a serious attempt to get consistency and credibility in to the process. For what it’s worth, whenever I hear outrage on social media about sentencing decisions, it is usually (NB: but not always!) due to the fact that people don’t like the sentencing guidelines. It may be vented as frustration at the judge for being ‘weak’ or some similar, perhaps more horrifying epithet, but when you unpick it, we often find the judges are rationalising their decisions for scrutiny and to show how they reached their decision in accordance with these guidelines.
Does that mean they are always correct? – no, of course not. That’s why we have appeal courts and “unusually lenient” sentence reviews by the Court of Appeal.
And that’s it – happy reading if it interests or helps you.
Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation. (c) Michael Brown, 2024
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 