Comparative Research Into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research and Information Service Research Paper June 2011 Fiona O’Connell Comparative Research into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms NIAR 610-10 This paper provides comparative research on sentencing guidelines mechanisms in 16 jurisdictions in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the United States and South Africa Paper 66/11 16 June 2011 Research and Information Service briefings are compiled for the benefit of MLAs and their support staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. We do, however, welcome written evidence that relate to our papers and these should be sent to the Research and Information Service, Northern Ireland Assembly, Room 139, Parliament Buildings, Belfast BT4 3XX or e-mailed to [email protected] NIAR 610-10 Comparative Research into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms Key Points This paper is about the role of sentencing guidelines bodies. There are different approaches to sentencing guidelines policy and bodies in other jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions do not have sentencing guidelines bodies but rely on alternative mechanisms. These include for example mandatory minimum sentencing in legislation (eg Canada) or sentencing information systems as alternatives to sentencing guidelines bodies (eg Ireland). It should be noted that the approach to sentencing (mandatory minimum sentencing) in Canada may not easily be transposed to Northern Ireland as Canada has a codified system of criminal law. Other jurisdictions have established sentencing guidelines bodies either to draft sentencing guidelines or to advise courts on sentencing matters. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice has issued a consultation paper in which it puts forward three different models for a sentencing guidelines mechanism: an independent sentencing guidelines council with a statutory remit for producing guidelines; an independent sentencing advisory panel with a statutory remit to draft guidelines for approval of the Court of Appeal; and a judicial oversight committee known as a Sentencing Group to be established by the Lord Chief Justice. A review of the literature on sentencing guidelines bodies suggests the following issues for consideration: Whether objectives underpinning a sentencing guidelines mechanism should be set out in legislation. There are broadly similar objectives that sentencing guidelines bodies in England and Wales, Scotland and as proposed in Northern Ireland have to pursue when considering sentencing guidelines. These include promoting consistency and ensuring public confidence. In England and Wales, objectives for the Sentencing Guidelines Council are not set out explicitly in statute, though there are certain 'needs' that the Council has to consider when discharging its functions. In Scotland, legislation sets out the statutory objectives of the Scottish Sentencing Council. The functions of a sentencing body- The primary function of the sentencing bodies is to produce (or advise on) sentencing guidelines. Some bodies have functions relating to parole or to assist in the development of legislation and policy. Would a Northern Ireland sentencing body would have a role in considering government‟s Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Information Service 1 NIAR 610-10 Comparative Research into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms policy proposals or assisting in the development of sentencing policy or have functions in respect of assessing the impact of guidelines on resources (for example prison resources)? The success of sentencing guidelines mechanism in addressing levels of public confidence in sentencing- The Department suggests that public confidence in sentencing is low in Northern Ireland, indicating that only 24% of respondents believe the courts are effective in giving a punishment that fits the crime and this figure is the same in England and Wales. It has been suggested further analysis should be undertaken in relation to models in Australia which focus more on research and education rather than guiding the judiciary. Research from New South Wales Sentencing Council in Australia suggests that low public confidence is also an issue amongst its residents with 66% of residents thinking that sentences given by the courts are too lenient. The format of sentencing guidelines to be used in Northern Ireland. From the literature, there are two main types of guidelines: narrative guidelines (used in England and Wales) and numerical guidelines (used in the US). The Sentencing Commission Working Group in England and Wales concluded that the numerical model was too restrictive of judicial discretion. This may be suitable for consideration later in the process. The membership of a sentencing body and duration of terms. Membership ranges from 8-14 across the models considered in this paper. Some models have a greater number of judicial members (England and Wales), others a balance of judges and non judicial members (Scotland). Some Australian models have no judges. Non judicial members tend to include representatives with experience of the criminal justice system, legal professionals and victims groups. In some models the members can sit for one term only, but there are some models where terms are renewable for another term. It was suggested in research in England and Wales, if a sentencing body was established, the need for the Criminal Court of Appeal Division in issuing guidance would be reduced. It was suggested that a positive working relationship between the Guidelines mechanism and the Court of Appeal is therefore important and more likely to be achieved with judicial membership and leadership of the sentencing guidelines body. Equality Considerations. It has been suggested that Department should undertake an equality screening exercise, particularly focusing on the impact of those with caring responsibilities and dependents, young men and those convicted of scheduled offences who fall under the equality scheme on the basis of political opinion given the greater impact sentencing guidelines would have on these groups. Other policies Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Information Service 2 NIAR 610-10 Comparative Research into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms have noted the disproportionate effects of imprisonment on women in Northern Ireland. Consideration may therefore need to be given as to whether there is a need to include members with familiarity with any specific groups in the Northern Ireland model. Some models include members with experience of working with particular groups such as indigenous or ethnic minority groups. Supporting the work of the body- Most of the bodies considered have a secretariat to support their work. An option to consider is whether the proposed sentencing guidelines body should have its own dedicated staff; staff seconded from other bodies; or staff shared with other bodies, such as the Courts Service. The final decision in approving guidelines- In some models, guidelines bodies simply propose guidelines and it is for the legislatures or courts to approve or veto them. In other models, it is for the guidelines bodies to approve the guidelines after consultation with the legislatures or the courts. The relationship between a sentencing guidelines body in Northern Ireland and the Assembly, in particular the Assembly‟s Justice Committee. In England and Wales, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee has a role in scrutinising draft sentencing guidelines. In other jurisdictions such as Minnesota and as legislated for in New Zealand, the legislatures have a role in disapplying or vetoing guidelines. Securing accountability- Some of the jurisdictions require the sentencing guidelines body to submit annual reports to their respective legislatures. The role of the courts in departing from guidelines- In Northern Ireland, it is proposed that courts must have regard to the guidelines and they must, in court, state reasons for departure from these. Other models have what appear to be stronger duties to follow guidelines unless there are special reasons not to. Will the courts have other duties such as notifying a guidelines body when issuing guidelines judgments? This is the case in the Victorian model in Australia. Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Information Service 3 NIAR 610-10 Comparative Research into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms Executive Summary The Hillsborough Agreement in 2010 contained a commitment to establish a sentencing guidelines council. Recently the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a consultation document “Consultation on a Sentencing Guidelines Mechanism”, which sets out three options for a sentencing guidelines body: an independent sentencing guidelines council with a statutory remit for producing guidelines; an independent sentencing advisory panel with a statutory remit to draft guidelines for approval of the Court of Appeal; and a judicial oversight committee known as a Sentencing Group to be established by the Lord Chief Justice. This paper provides information on comparative sentencing guidelines mechanisms in a number of jurisdictions including England and Wales, Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Australia, Canada, Minnesota, US (federal level), New Zealand (legislated for but not established), South Africa (proposed but not legislated for), Germany, France and the Netherlands. The paper examines a number of issues to be considered in establishing a guidelines body: the objectives of sentencing guidelines bodies, their functions,