The Aims of Sentencing – Preventing Re-Offending? – By Marie Spenwyn

This article reviews the recent research report published by the Sentencing Council examining the effectiveness of sentencing with a view to approaches to mitigation. The report concluded that the evidence does not support a conclusion that more severe sentences have a significant deterrent effect on the offender or on offending behaviour generally. Measuring the effectiveness of sentencing is a key part of the role of the Sentencing Council. On the 30th September 2022 a report was published authored by Dr Jay Gormley and Dr Ian Belton entitled “The Effectiveness of Sentencing Options on Reoffending”. The following appears in the key findings section of the report: The evidence does not suggest that using more severe sentences (particularly sentences of immediate imprisonment over other disposals) has significant deterrent effects on the person sentenced or the general population. However, more evidence is needed to assess the deterrent effects of suspended custodial sentences, rather than immediate imprisonment, on those subject to such an order. The report also finds that the evidence demonstrates – in fact ‘strongly suggests’ – that sentences of immediate custody under twelve months are less effective than other types of sentence when focusing on preventing reoffending. The authors state in that context that there is a ‘reasonable body’ of evidence which indicates that use of short sentences can in fact increase reoffending. An understanding of these findings may assist those presenting submissions as to sentence in certain cases. The use of sentencing guidelines when mitigating in circumstances where it is clear what category a case will fall into, either by agreement or by direction from the bench during submissions, can often place a case into the significant bracket where – once an appropriate reduction for plea and for mitigation are taken into account – the question of whether a sentence can properly be suspended is a key consideration for the court. Reference to the guideline on use of suspended sentences and the significant authority of Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214 assists those mitigating in making targeted submissions to seek to persuade the court to an option that does not involve immediate custody. Considering the import of aspects of this report in a measured way, focused as it is on the effectiveness of sentences, could well assist those tasked with inviting the court to avoid a prison sentence. Further, depending on the facts of the case and the circumstances of the offender, the advocate may also draw assistance from some of the specifics within the report – for example when representing females (see part 7). For children, the focus on age and brain maturity (see part 3) are areas that could be drawn together with the overarching principles when sentencing young offenders to highlight pertinent features. The aims of sentencing are enshrined in section 57 of the Sentencing Code for adults (offender aged 18 or over when convicted). Entitled “purposes of sentencing”, s57(2) states that, save in relation to disposals under the Mental Health Act 1983 or mandatory sentences, the court must have regard to: (a) the punishment of offenders, (b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence), (c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, (d) the protection of the public, and (e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences For children – those under 18 – section 58 reiterates that nothing in the code affects the duty of the court to have regard to the welfare of the child and the principle aim of the Youth Justice System: preventing offending or re-offending. For adults one of the aims the court must have regard to is deterrence and reduction in crime – so implicitly reduction in re-offending; for children it is the duty of the court to have regard to preventing re-offending. It is striking that the research does not find support on the current evidence that sentences of immediate custody – as opposed to other alternative disposals, specifically suspended sentence orders or in the case of children intensive rehabilitation orders – have a deterrent effect on the person being sentenced or the ‘general population’. When mitigating in a situation where there is a genuine question for the court as to whether imposing immediate custody in the form of imprisonment, detention in a young offender’s institution or, for those under 18, a detention and training order, an awareness of these findings could be usefully woven into submissions. In combination with a thoughtful pre-sentence report setting out a programme for sentence specifically targeting the prevention further offending acknowledging these findings might assist in what can often be a delicate balancing exercise for the court.   Marie Spenwyn November 2022 Download Article here

Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 Guides 2023 – Libertas Rankings Announced

Libertas Chambers are delighted to announce that our clerking team and 15 of our Barristers have been ranked in the latest editions of the Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 directories. Head of Chambers Simon Csoka KC had the following to say “In Libertas Chambers’ second year together and in what was a very tough year for the criminal defence bar, we are delighted to see many of our silks and juniors ranked as leading practitioners in Crime, Financial Crime / Fraud, and Professional Discipline. We congratulate them all and also acknowledge the many achievements of all of our other members over the last 12 months together with the hard work of our clerking team.” Director of Clerking Marc King adds “We are a modern vibrant Set combining a modern business approach with the best traditions of the Bar. Libertas continues to move forward with the recent recruitment of further Silks and juniors.” Libertas thanks all those who provided such positive assessments and congratulates all our clients, partners and colleagues who have also been ranked. Libertas Chambers – Leading Set – Crime & Financial Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile Individual Ranked QCs & Juniors Simon Csoka QC –  Ranked in: Crime, Financial Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “Simon is excellent. He is really clever and thinks outside the box.” “His written work is fantastic.” “Simon is a go-to silk. He has a brain like a computer and it is a joy to work with him.” “A man with a brain the size of a planet, he is fearless and will stand up to judges when no one else will.” “He is great with difficult clients as he has a very calming influence on them and can deal with people from all strata of society.” Legal 500 – Crime – Tier 1 ‘Simon is a truly exceptional advocate. Probably the finest exponent of the art of cross examination on any circuit in England and Wales. Frighteningly bright, masters complex briefs very easily and has a chair side manner that never fails to impress both professional and lay clients. Easily one of the finest criminal and regulatory silks in the country.’ Leonard Smith QC – Ranked in: Crime, Financial Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “A ferocious advocate with great gravitas, who’s brilliant in court.” Legal 500 – Crime – Tier 3 ‘Leonard is relentless in his case preparation to ensure that when he gets to his feet to advocate in court he can delivery the best possible case for his client.’ Adam Kane QC – Ranked in: Crime, Financial Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “Juries warm instantly to the elegant manner in which he puts his case.” “Adam works hard, communicates with his clients and is able to foresee the legal landscape.” “Adam can spot the details of a case. He captivates juries.” “He gets to the heart of the issue quickly and makes very persuasive closing and opening speeches.” “He is a very well-established and highly regarded silk in financial crime. He does some of the biggest cases and is an excellent advocate.” “An excellent practitioner who puts his clients at ease. He expertly deciphers complex evidence and leaves the client in no doubt as to what the case against them is.” Legal 500 – Crime – Tier 4 & Fraud Tier 3 ‘Adam is a great legal mind and strategist. His knowledge of the facts and the evidence in the case may only be surpassed by his knowledge and command of the law. ‘ ‘Adam is an incredibly erudite courtroom performer. His greatest asset is his way with words. He is charming in front of a jury but firm with witnesses when firmness is called for. He is always well-prepared and often spots arguments that others have overlooked.’ Siobhan Grey QC – Ranked in: Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “Very hard-working and persuasive. She is technically gifted and calm under pressure.” Legal 500 – Crime – Tier 4 ‘Siobhan is open-minded, methodical, meticulous and scientific in her approach to forensic evidence.’ Felicity Gerry QC – Ranked in Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “A wonderful fighter with an extraordinary intellect, she’s very efficient and very good with clients.” Legal 500 – Crime – Tier 3 ‘Felicity is a leading expert on the law of joint enterprise who commands respect from judges as to the correct framework to now be applied.’ Keith Mitchell – Ranked in: Financial Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “Keith is extremely personable and good at putting clients at ease. He is also a strong jury advocate.” Legal 500 – Fraud – Tier 3 ‘Keith is an excellent all-round barrister – he is good with clients, pro active and attentive to instructing solicitors, top quality advocacy and very persuasive written work.’ Roxanne Morrell – Ranked in: Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “Extremely conscientious and meticulously professional.” James Walker – Ranked in: Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “A very bright individual who is particularly good at any case involving huge reams of paperwork.” Gerard Hillman – Ranked in: Crime, Financial Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “Gerard is really approachable and has brilliant client care skills. He is a go-to for financial crime matters.” “Gerard has very good client skills. He is an extremely able lawyer who is very realistic and has great judgement.” “He’s highly experienced and knows how to keep even the most fraught case from going off the rails.” “An outstanding barrister for major crime cases.” Legal 500 – Crime – Tier 3 & Fraud Tier 4 ‘A seriously accomplished counsel, Gerard is formidable, intellectual and a strong advocate. He has an excellent courtroom presence and is a strategic thinker.’ Darren Snow – Legal 500 – Professional Discipline & Regulatory – Tier 4 “Darren has appeared in a number of complex cases for nurses before the NMC in the last year alongside work chairing several high-profile police disciplinary tribunals.” Marie Spenwyn – Ranked in: Crime – View Chambers & Partners Profile “She is meticulous, methodical and very proactive, thinking about the trial from the word go and doing the very best for her client.” “A tough opponent who is one of the most organised barristers out there.” Frances Hertzog – Ranked in: Crime – View Chambers & Partners Profile “She’s an effective cross-examiner who’s calm under pressure.” “Very committed and extremely patient with difficult and vulnerable clients.” Matthew Lawson – Legal 500 – Crime Tier 4 ‘Matt is extremely approachable, responsive and clients love to have him on their side. His client care skills are exceptional’ Ayaz Qazi – Legal 500 – Crime – Tier 4 ‘Ayaz is, without the least hesitation, a class act. His approach to cases is based on excellent preparation and thoroughness to the extent of minute detail.’ Oliver Cook – Ranked in: Crime – View Chambers & Partners profile “He is well received by clients of every stripe and is extremely approachable.” Legal 500 – Crime Tier 4 ‘Oliver is a brilliant barrister who can inspire juries to deliver positive verdicts for his clients in the most demanding cases. He is the barrister that you need on your side when you are in trouble.’ You can read more about what the Guide says about us by visiting Chambers Guide 2023