Attorney General reports on Unduly Lenient Sentences examined in 2009

27 July 2010

Figures released today by the Attorney General's Office (AGO) show that in 2009, 71% of the 108 sentences referred by the Law Officers and considered by the Court of Appeal were deemed unduly lenient and 66% of offenders - 71 - had their sentences increased.

In 2008, the sentences of 52 offenders were increased out of 71 sentences reviewed by the Court of Appeal (73%). In 2007 106 sentences were reviewed by the Court.

Last year the sentences passed on 369 offenders were drawn to the attention of the previous Attorney General, Baroness Scotland QC, compared to 274 in 2008 and 342 in 2007.

In releasing the 2009 figures, the current Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP said:

"The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme is an important part of our role as guardians of the public interest, a way of examining the occasional case where questions must be asked. Whether or not the sentence is increased, an appeal can offer guidance to judges in how best they can approach that particular type of case in the future."

Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC MP, added:

"The courts recognise - and the Law Officers are acutely aware - that sentencing is not a mathematical calculation. The Attorney and Solicitor General are only requested to examine a fraction of sentences given each year. But there must remain a means by which anyone - especially victims or their families - can have apparently lenient sentences examined."

In broad terms, the test that is applied is whether a sentence falls outside the range that a judge, taking into account any relevant sentencing guidance and all other appropriate considerations, could reasonably impose.

Sentencing requires judgments to be made about the weight to be attached to all the relevant considerations, including how any relevant guidelines and the law should be applied. It may be reasonable to pass a sentence which is lenient, or which is harsher than the guidelines might suggest, on the particular facts of an individual case.

Some specific cases put forward by the former Attorney and Solicitor General in 2009 included:

  • A landmark ruling on sentences in what are sometimes referred to as one-punch manslaughter cases, in which death is typically a result of a blow to the head or where a punch causes the victim to fall and die as a result of a head injury. The previous Attorney General referred two cases, one from Rhyl, North Wales, the other from Middlesbrough, Teesside, asking the Court to review how these kinds of cases are sentenced and, in particular, to invite the Court to consider whether the guidelines, based on historic cases, are still applicable. Offenders in both cases had their sentences increased.
  • A sentence increase from seven to twelve years for James Yates, a gang member involved in the murder of Rhys Jones.
  • A rapist, who cannot be identified, who saw his sentence increased from 10 years imprisonment to an indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP).
  • Craig Bennett, who saw his IPP sentence with a minimum tariff of 10 years replaced with a life sentence, for falsely imprisoning, raping and threatening to kill a 12 year old boy in Lancashire.

It is not always the type of sentence which is examined, but the minimum term of an indeterminate sentence, either a life sentence or Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). The minimum term sets the earliest dates at which a prisoner may be considered for release by the Parole Board.

During 2009, some highly publicised cases of this nature were referred to the Attorney General's Office but after very careful consideration were not referred to the Court of Appeal as possibly unduly lenient.

Two of the three people involved in the Baby Peter case were given indefinite sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs) and the third a life sentence. The then Attorney General, Baroness Scotland QC decided not to refer the five and three year minimum terms of the IPPs and a 10-year tariff for the life sentence, explaining in detail how the judge had arrived at these terms and stressing they did not mean automatic release.

In another high profile case Dano Sonnex and Nigel Farmer were convicted of murdering French students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez and are serving life sentences with minimum terms of 40 and 35 years respectively before they can be considered for release. Baroness Scotland acknowledged the judge had acted properly and the sentences could not be said to fall outside the proper range. She felt there would be no prospect that the Court of Appeal would increase them.

ENDS

Further media enquiries to: Russell Hayes 020 7271 2484 or Susan Givens 0207 271 2465 (press.office@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk )

NOTES TO EDITORS

  1. Further details of the cases can be found on the AGO website which also contains press releases relating to 2009 cases. These do not relate to cases referred by the current Attorney or Solicitor General. A year on year comparison is also available.
    In keeping with previous years, defendant names are not given, as some may not be reportable due to the nature of the offences to which they relate. Please check with the AGO press office.
  2. In 2009 the sentences passed on 369 offenders were drawn to the attention of the AGO as being possibly unduly lenient.
  3. Not all of them fell into the limited category of offences that can be reviewed or arrived within the correct time period of 28 days after sentence. Of these, 311 sentences fell within the scheme and were considered (certain offences triable in the Crown Court).
  4. The previous Attorney General and Solicitor General proceeded with 108 references to the Court of Appeal for review and leave was granted to appeal for 102. The Court decided that 77 of these sentences were unduly lenient (71%) and of these, 71 offenders saw their sentences increased by the Court of Appeal (66%). This compares with the sentences on 52 offenders being increased out of 71 sentences reviewed by the Court of Appeal in 2008 (73%). In 2008 274 cases were drawn to the attention of the Attorney General for consideration.
  5. The Attorney General has the power under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer a case to the Court of Appeal where the sentence is considered to be unduly lenient. This must be done within 28 days of the sentence being imposed. The time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended. It is only sentences for certain more serious offences that can be referred to the Court of Appeal in this way.
  6. If the Court of Appeal finds the sentence to be unduly lenient it can, if it considers it appropriate, quash any sentence passed and impose a higher one. Or the Court may find a sentence unduly lenient but decide that it is not appropriate to alter it, perhaps because of developments since the sentence was referred or, on occasion, where an offender has shown good progress in complying with a community based penalty and it is believed that little would be achieved by placing the offender in custody at that stage.
  7. The Attorney General can also examine the length of the minimum term imposed in relation to an indeterminate sentence.
  8. Cases are usually referred to the Attorney General by the Crown Prosecution Service but it is open also to victims, their families, members of the public and MPs to ask the Attorney General to consider whether a sentence could be unduly lenient.