Council Publishes Guidelines for Sentencers dealing with

21 Feb 2008 10:06 AM Violent offenders who carry weapons to the scene of a crime and use them on victims should face severe sentences – says a definitive guideline published yesterday by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

Sentences for such offenders who inflict particularly grave injuries should be in a range of 10 and 16 years imprisonment.

The use of a weapon will usually increase the seriousness of the office and an offender who carries it to a scene with the intention of using it or having it available for use should the opportunity or need arise should attract a high level of culpability.

In the guideline to be implemented on March 3, the Council sets out a series of factors that will specifically aggravate assaults and should result in greater sentences. These include:

• Offenders operating in gangs or groups;
• The deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims or choosing isolated places for carrying out an attack;
• Attacks on victims working in the public sector or providing a service to the public.

Specific cases are also identified that involve a number of aggravating factors that will increase sentence. These include ‘happy slapping” which will be even more serious where there is further humiliation of victims through publishing the attack on the internet.

Sentencers are also reminded that an offender who inflicts injury as a result of a planned honour killing or an attempt to force someone into an arranged marriage will have abused a position of trust or power and as a result should face a heavier sentence.

Council member Judge Michael Mettyear said: “Assaults on public sector workers and those providing a service to the public including members of the emergency services and transport workers cause harm to the individual and to wider society.

“They can result in reduced or cancelled services, discourage people from working in certain jobs and undermine public confidence. The sentence handed down by the court should reflect that.

“Furthermore, where an offence is committed against someone providing a service to the public and that worker is also particularly vulnerable – such as an attendant in an all-night petrol station – this will constitute further aggravation.”

The guideline also provides advice to sentencers dealing with cases of assault with intent to resist arrest and assaults on police officers in the execution of their duty.

Sentencers are advised that in both instances the guideline is for an offence involving little or no physical harm. If there are injuries, that would normally be charged as an assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the offence would be aggravated because the victim was a police officer.

The Council has decided at this stage not to issue guidance on sentencing in cases of attempted murder. Following responses to its earlier consultation, which identified a number of issues that require further consideration, a definitive guideline will be issued at a later date.

In a second guideline relating to assaults on children and the offence of cruelty to a child the Council says that where a child is the victim and the offender an adult, custody will normally result, particularly where the offence involves an abuse of trust.

Where an offender only intended to administer lawful chastisement and relatively minor injury resulted that was neither foreseen nor intended, custody will not normally be appropriate.
“Although the defendant would have intended nothing more than lawful chastisement, as currently allowed by the law, he or she would have had no defence to such a charge because an assault occasioning actual bodily harm does not require the offender to intend or even foresee that the act will result in any physical harm; it is sufficient that it did,” the guideline explains.

Child cruelty cases will normally result in a custodial sentence but sentencers are also advised to take into account any available information concerning the future care of the child.

“In many circumstances, an offence of assault on a child will cause the court to conclude that only a custodial sentence can be justified. Imposition of such a sentence will often protect a victim from further harm and anguish. However, where imprisonment of the offender deprives a child victim of his or her sole or main carer (and may result in the child being taken into care), it may punish and re-victimise the child,” says the guideline.

Imposing a custodial sentence may be the only option but where options remain “more open” the court should take into account the impact that prison for the offender may have on the victim.

Notes to editors

The two definitive guidelines are available on the SGC website (www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk) along with:

• a summary of consultation responses to the Council.

Printed copies may be obtained from: the Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat, 4th Floor, 8-10 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AE.

About the Council
The Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) was set up in 2004 in order to frame guidelines to assist courts in England and Wales dealing with criminal cases.

Created by statute, the SGC and the Sentencing Advisory Panel are independent non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. They share a joint Secretariat.

The Council is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, with seven other members from the judiciary and four members who between them bring experience of policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defence, and the interests of victims of crime. Judicial members are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice: non-judicial members by the Justice Minister.

The other members of the Council are: Sir Igor Judge (Deputy Chairman); Lord Justice David Latham; Mr Justice Christopher Pitchford; HH Judge Peter Beaumont; HH Judge Michael Mettyear; Judge Timothy Workman; Malathy Sitaram JP; Anthony Edwards (Solicitor); Sir Ken Macdonald QC (Director of Public Prosecutions); Chief Constable Peter Neyroud; and Teresa Reynolds (interests of victims).

Meetings of the Council are also attended by Christine Stewart, the Director of Law and Sentencing Policy in the National Offender Management Service, and by the Chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, Professor Andrew Ashworth.

The Sentencing Advisory Panel
The Sentencing Advisory Panel is an independent advisory and consultative body created in 1999 and now constituted under section 169 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The Panel submits its advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The Panel’s advice concerns general sentencing principles and sentencing of specific offences as well as allocation (the choice of court venue – magistrates’ court or the Crown Court). Chaired by Professor Andrew Ashworth, the Panel has 14 members.

Details of current membership can be found at: