- Conference
- 2024 Police, Probation and CAFCASS Conference
- Date
- 18 June 2024
- Decision
- Carried
Conference notes that the Sentencing Council was established by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to prepare sentencing guidelines and is a body that is appointed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice.
In preparing guidelines, the Council must have regard to:
1)the sentences imposed by courts in England and Wales for offences
2)the need to promote consistency in sentencing
3)the impact of sentencing decisions on victims of offences
4)the need to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system
5)the cost of different sentences and their relative effectiveness in preventing re-offending
6)the results of the Council’s monitoring of the operation and effect of the guidelines.
Conference further notes that judges and magistrates must follow the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council ‘unless the Court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so’.
Conference believes that:
a)Whilst the Sentencing Council routinely consults members of the public and criminal justice professionals there is a need for more input from Probation Service professionals who not only work with people on probation but also with victims of crime and with sentencers on a daily basis.
b. It is imperative that justice is served and that sentences are effective in preventing recidivism, but that sentencing guidelines for certain offences would be best dealt with by means of financial penalties rather than set at a range involving a community penalty as a starting point.
c. The Probation Service cannot reduce re-offending rates if it uses its scant resources to manage people on probation for purely punitive reasons. Current staffing shortages mean that probation staff are now dealing with unmanageable workloads which are damaging to their health, safety and wellbeing. Changes to the sentencing guidelines would provide the opportunity to reduce unnecessary workload and help reduce stress and ill-health among probation members.
d. Whilst it is understood that punitive sentences such as unpaid work can have a rehabilitative impact on some individuals, it has come to the point whereby a line needs to be drawn and for example, offences such as failure to provide a breath Specimen, within reason, could effectively manage risk through driving bans and fines rather than through Community Orders.
e. A reduction of community orders coming through court would assist Probation in dealing with higher risk cases and those needing rehabilitation, more effectively and efficiently, considering there are currently approximately 270,000 persons subject to probation orders.
Conference therefore instructs the Service Group Executive to work with the Probation Sector Committee and UNISON’s Labour Link to work through appropriate channels to seek to encourage the Sentencing Council to:
f. improve its interaction with the Probation Service and to consider appointing persons with extensive Probation Service experience to future Sentencing Councils.
g. Make changes to its sentencing guidelines to remove unnecessary community orders for offences which could be better managed via a range of disposals like fines or bans and which would remove unnecessary workload from Probation Service staff.