Unduly lenient sentence statistics: statement by Sir Igor Judge

Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, and Head of Criminal Justice has responded to the release by the Attorney General’s Office of statistics on references to the Court of Appeal of what she regarded as unduly lenient sentences imposed in the Crown Court.

Sir Igor said:

"Once again the right conclusion to draw from the statistics is that the system is working as intended.

“This information shows that from time to time sentencing decisions are made which the Court of Appeal considers are wrong. Accordingly they are corrected.

“Only around 77 cases involving 106 defendants were referred in the last year, and of these the sentence was increased in the case of 75 defendants. This should be seen in the context that there were over 120,000 disposals made in the Crown Court last year.

“Cases where sentences are increased or indeed reduced show the strength of the system which provides a proper mechanism for review both of unduly lenient sentences and those which defendants argue are excessive.

“In past years the release of the equivalent statistics has resulted in personalised criticism of individual judges which in many cases was unfair and disproportionate. Critics should bear in mind:

• judges must balance different, complex factors alongside legislative provisions as well as decisions by the Court of Appeal and Sentencing Guidelines. Not all cases are the same and the specific circumstances will vary enormously. If it is a complex and unprecedented decision, it is only right that it should be considered by the Court of Appeal so the Court can consider what the appropriate sentencing approach should be.
• particular focus on any individual decision should be set in the context of the fact that many sentencing judges deal with a very large number of cases each year.
• not every successful appeal to the Court of Appeal involves criticism of the trial judge – by way of example, a decision of the Court of Appeal giving further guidance may have been issued in the meantime, or sentencing guidelines changed.”