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 he regarded as unduly lenient sentences imposed in the Crown Court.
Sir Igor said:
"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 100 cases were referred in the last year, and they did not all lead to an increased sentence. To provide some context there are around 80,000 cases dealt with in the Crown Court in any one year1.
“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.
“Last year the release of the equivalent statistics resulted in personalised criticism of individual judges which in many cases was unfair and disproportionate:
- Sentencing decisions in the Crown Court are rarely straightforward. Judges must take account of all the available evidence presented to the court. This often produces conflicting considerations, which have to be balanced against each other. Moreover, judges are required to take into account complicated legislative provisions as well as decisions of the Court of Appeal and definitive Sentencing Guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
- 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, usually without any adverse comment.
- 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”.
Footnote
1. See Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. A case must specifically meet the requirements of Section 35 (3) of that Act.
