Easton & Piper: Sentencing and Punishment 2e 
DevelopmentsEaston & Piper: Sentencing and Punishment 2e
Chapter 07
7.2.2 The Offender: Vulnerability and Age pp 215-217
Older prisoners: The Chief Inspector of Prisons has published the follow up study to the 2004 Review of Older Prisoners. Although there had been some positive improvements since 2004, there was still 'some way to go' and the Report is critical of the fact that there is still no national strategy for older prisoners.
See (2008) Older Prisoners in England and Wales: a follow-up to the 2004 thematic review by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, HMIP.
7.3.1. Fines as punishment pp 220-223
The restriction on the use of community orders such that only those convicted of imprisonable offences can be subject to such an order, might encourage more use of financial penalties. (See Further developments, Chapter 3.)
7.3.2 Units of financial deprivation pp 223-225
Raine, J. and Dunstan, E. (2009) ‘How well do sentencing guidelines work? Equity, proportionality and consistency in the determination of fine levels in the magistrates’ courts of England and Wales’ The Howard Journal Vol 48(1) 13-36.
This recent article in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice reports on research undertaken in 2006 in the magistrates’ courts of England and Wales for the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It used 12 case studies with magistrates in order to examine the extent to which the objectives of equity (of impact), proportionality (in relation to seriousness) and consistency (in sentencing patterns) were achieved. All participants were using the structured sentencing guidance for fines which included assessment of offender means and recommended starting points and ranges.
The research suggested that many panels, although applying the guideline methodology, ‘subsequently chose to change their minds’ (at p. 29). Most panels also expressed concern at the restrictions on their discretion caused by the guidance.
‘One important conclusion from the research…was that “proportionality” seemed to be the over-riding concern for sentencers in the workshops’ (at p.31). In particular they note the following:
‘In instances where very low fines were generated, the concerns were about the justice process failing to ensure “just deserts” and appropriate punishment and fears of giving the wrong message to both the offender and the wider public’ (at p. 32).
In relation to high fines for less serious offences but where the offender had the means to pay the concern was that the outcome was based too heavily on equity and not enough on proportionality (ibid).
7.3.3 Default and enforcement pp 226-7
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s41 (already in force) inserts new paragraphs 9A-9C in the Courts Act 2003, Schedule 5, Part 3. On request to the Secretary of State the staff of Her Majesty's Courts Service (HMCS) can gain access to benefit records held by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for the purpose of fine enforcement.
Attendance centre requirement for fine default: the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s40 amends, when implemented, s300 of the CJA 2003 to give the courts the power to impose an attendance centre requirement on a fine defaulter aged 16-24. Currently section 300 allows the courts to impose an unpaid work requirement or a curfew requirement.
7.4.2. Treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 pp 231-233
The Mental Health Act 2007 sections 1 -3 (categories of mental disorder), 4 -6 (appropriate treatment test), 7 (definition of medical treatment) and 8 (fundamental principles) have been in force since 3 November 2008. These provisions have amended sections 1 and 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 so that previous criteria and definitions no longer apply.
View print version