‘Right’ of criminals to lower sentences is condemned by judge

A SENIOR Scottish judge has criticised the “routine” granting of a one-third discount in sentences to criminals who plead guilty and save the system time and money.

Lord Gill, the Lord Justice-Clerk, said some reduction in prison terms and fines was appropriate, but he questioned whether it should be so much, and warned that a belief had grown up that offenders who admitted charges were “entitled” to the reward.

He said: “The risk is that the allowance of substantial discounts may cause the sentencing decisions of the criminal courts to lose credibility and in this way may erode the authority of the courts generally.”

Sentence discounting was once viewed as “an objectionable practice”, but it has developed greatly in recent years, and is now enshrined in statute. In 2005, the Court of Criminal Appeal issued guidance that the reduction in non-murder cases should not normally exceed a third of the sentence which would have been imposed.

The issue was raised again in a series of cases heard by Lord Gill and four fellow appeal judges. In his judgment yesterday, Lord Gill said: “At the hearing in these appeals, it was said more than once that by reason of an early plea, an accused was ‘entitled to’ a discount.

“That is a careless use of language, but it reflects an approach that is prevalent in certain courts of first instance. From the many appeals that we hear in this court, and from a wealth of anecdotal evidence, it is apparent that in some courts discounts of one-third are being allowed for early pleas as a matter of routine.” Last night a spokesman for Victim Support Scotland welcomed an “ongoing debate” about tariffs applied.

He said: “Every victim of crime, where there is a prosecution against a perpetrator, becomes aware during the process that there is a system of tariffs.

“And it is recognised that there are tariffs for early pleas of guilty, which save victims from having to give evidence.”

He added: “There would be victims of crime who would think a reduction of a third was unfair, but others would see it as part of the sentencing process.”

Lord Gill added: “My own view is that this court may have to give further consideration to the suitability of discounts of a third or more. Discounts of that size, particularly in light of early release provisions, could in certain cases raise a question of public confidence in the ability of our justice system to deal with offenders fairly and resolutely.”

However, defence lawyer John Scott, QC, warned any changes could trigger a fall in guilty pleas, and a rise in trials, and that the court system would struggle to cope. He said: “What might have been overlooked in recent years, is the massive increase in the number of pleas of guilty.

“People plead guilty to murder, which used to be unheard of. But if there is no certainty [of a discount] then what am I to tell the client?”

He added: “The number of early guilty pleas will decrease and the system will be swamped and, at the moment, it would not be able to work.”

Paul McBride QC, said there was a need for judges’ discretion. He said: “You want to get people to plead guilty early to prevent relatives from being distressed, because if there’s nothing in it for them they won’t do it.

“On the other hand, you can’t bring the system into disrepute by giving people sentences that are risible. Lord Gill is correct, we don’t want it to be a formula, we want judges to have discretion, but we do want people to have a discount, especially with the more serious crimes.”