October 2010 to March 2011 results

This bulletin is released by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales and produced in accordance with arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority.

Introduction

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales launched a new survey on 1 October 2010 to capture information on the factors that influence sentence outcomes. Although the primary purpose for collecting this data is not to produce a publication of findings, the Council have recognised the usefulness of this data in providing new information about the relationship between the offence committed by an offender and the sentence that they finally receive. Therefore, it is their intention to publish the findings on a regular basis. This report presents the findings of the first six months of the survey and the work being done by analysts at the Council to further develop the statistics.

A survey form is expected to be completed for every sentence passed on a principal offence at every Crown Court location across England and Wales on or after 1 October 2010. Between 1 October 2010 and 31 March 2011, a survey form was returned for 36,093 sentences. Of these, at least 89 per cent have been confirmed to relate to the principal offence committed. This represents an overall national response rate of between 54 per cent (when looking at only cases where a match was made to principal offence) and 64 per cent (when all cases are considered).

The survey is essentially a census but at this stage has not been weighted for potential non-response. However, we believe that there is value in putting the first results into the public domain provisionally while the weighting methodology is developed and feedback is received on the presentation of these statistics.

Offence Level

The first factor that a judge will determine when sentencing an offender is the offence level. This is a reflection of the severity of the offence compared to other offences of the same type (for example, one ABH case versus other cases of ABH) and is determined by assessing the harm caused, or risked being caused, by committing the offence and how culpable the offender was for the offence. The survey indicates that:

17 per cent of sentences were for a level 1 offence – an offence involving a high level of harm and high level of culpability compared to other offences of the same type, and 20 per cent for an offence that was level 4 or lower – an offence involving the lowest levels of harm and culpability;
70 per cent of level 1 offenders were sentenced to immediate custody, 14 per cent were given a suspended sentence order, and 12 per cent received a community order;
for level 4 or lower offenders, 25 per cent were sentenced to immediate custody, 27 per cent were given a suspended sentence order, and 39 per cent received a community order; and
after applying any reductions for a guilty plea, the average custodial sentence length was three years three months for a level 1 offender, and one year four months for a level 4 or lower offender.

Previous Convictions

Where the offender has previous convictions that are either recent, or considered relevant to the offence being sentenced, the judge may decide to take these into account. The survey shows that:

49 per cent of offenders sentenced had no previous convictions taken into account when determining their sentence;
where the offender did have previous convictions that were taken into account when determining the sentence, most frequently, between one and three offences were taken into account; and
59 per cent of offenders with one to three previous convictions taken into account were sent to immediate custody. This increased to 78 per cent for offenders with 10 or more previous convictions taken into account.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Aggravating and mitigating factors are other factors relating to the case or the offender that provide the context to how and why the offence was committed. In each case, these factors will have differing levels of importance in determining the sentence, depending on the specific circumstances of that case. Results from the survey show that:

for offenders with four or more aggravating factors but no mitigating factors, 96 per cent were sent to immediate custody, whilst for offenders with four or more mitigating factors but no aggravating factors, only 12 per cent were sentenced to immediate custody; and
of those offenders sentenced to immediate custody, after applying any reductions for a guilty plea, the average custodial sentence length received by offenders with four or more aggravating factors but no mitigating factors was four years three months. This compares to an average custodial sentence length of one year seven months for offenders with no aggravating factors and four or more mitigating factors.

Guilty Pleas

Offenders can enter a guilty plea at any stage in the court process. The level of guilty plea reduction applied will depend on the stage of the process at which the plea is made and the circumstances in which the plea was given. In some cases, the offender may indicate guilt at the police station before entering court, (although any formal guilty pleas must be entered at court).

35 per cent of forms reported that the offender had indicated guilt at the police station. Whilst at court, 87 per cent of forms indicated that the offender entered a plea of guilty. The survey shows that:

the most frequent stage of the proceedings at which offenders pleaded guilty was at the plea and case management hearing (PCMH), an early hearing at the Crown Court, with 43 per cent indicated to have pleaded at this stage; and
of those pleading guilty, 69 per cent received a discount of 33 per cent, 12 per cent received a discount of between 21 and 32 per cent, 8 per cent received a discount of between 11 and 20 per cent and 8 per cent received a discount of between 1 and 10 per cent. 2 per cent received no discount.

Sentences for the offence of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

Some offence specific findings are presented in this report for actual bodily harm (ABH) – the offence for which the highest volume of forms was received. These findings are provided as an example of how other offence specific findings may be presented in future publications.

Between October 2010 and March 2011, of all offenders sentenced for ABH, 13 per cent committed offences that were considered to have involved the highest level of harm and culpability, reflecting a level 1 offence, whilst 27 per cent were level 2 offences, 33 per cent were level 3 offences and 27 per cent involved the lowest levels of harm and culpability (level 4 offences).
On average, before the guilty plea reduction was applied, level 1 ABH offenders who were sentenced to immediate custody received a sentence length of two years two months. For level 2 offenders, this was one year six months, for level 3 offenders it was one year two months whilst for level 4 offenders, it was one year one month.
The guideline in use over the period of this report for assault offences was the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) guideline: Assault and Other Offences Against the Person. This guideline suggests an appropriate range of outcomes for the offence of ABH – a community order to a four year custodial sentence. This range is applicable before taking into account any further factors relating to the offence or the offender, or any reductions for a guilty plea. 98 per cent of sentences for ABH fell within the overall SGC guideline offence range.
The most commonly seen aggravating factor in sentenced cases of ABH was the use of a weapon. The most commonly seen mitigating factor was genuine remorse shown by the offender.
90 per cent of offenders sentenced for ABH had entered a guilty plea. For those who pleaded guilty to an ABH offence, the offender most frequently entered their plea at the Plea and Case Management Hearing (PCMH) (in 43 per cent of cases), and the most common level of discount applied was 33 per cent (in 64 per cent of cases).

Further work

Analysts at the Council are working towards the following for future publications of Crown Court Sentencing Survey data:

to report the survey data in an annual release on a calendar year basis;
to weight for non-response;
where possible, to provide data that is aligned to other Criminal Justice Statistics; and
to include some qualitative analysis of the free text sections of the form to further supplement the data received and to help explain any anomalies in the data.

Acknowledgements

This survey would not be possible if it were not for the time spent by judges and court staff in ensuring the completion and administration of the survey. The Council would like to express their gratitude to all those involved for their continued participation which has allowed this new and useful information to be made available.

Explanatory notes

Please refer to the section “Further Information” on pages 31 to 36 for details of the "Data quality and validation", "Presentation of results", "Limitation of the data" and "Relevant background information".

Contact us

General Enquiries
Tel: 020 3334 0634
Email: research

Responsible Statistician
Trevor Steeples
020 3334 0642

Press Office Enquiries
Nick Mann
020 3334 0631