The Judicial System of UK - Essay Example

? English Sentencing Law Every democratic nation in the world is governed by its self-governing regulations, designed to give an ethical shape to theconduct of general public, with a due respect to the moral human values they embrace in their daily life. The whole idea of regulation is to maintain peace, humanity and security, giving rise to other fields of general development in the country, which ensures legal, social and economical prosperity.To undertake such a huge responsibility, the governing system divides itself into three major bodies, which are legislative, executive, and judicatory.The policies legislated by the legislative body are put in practice by the executive body and are followed by the responsibility of the judiciary to keep a watch upon the general practices of the public. The duty of judiciary is not confined inthat periphery only, as the entire credibility of maintaining public peace and securing the rights of the people rests upon it. The influence of judiciary starts from the point of conviction of an offender or a violator to the sentencing as well as their rehabilitation, if required. Let us now discuss about the UK judicial system, observing the proportionality and authenticity of its sentencing law. It is a known fact that UK does not have a written constitution. That gives it the space for its flexibility, which leads to the huge number of amendments; every amendment is deeply correlated with the judicial decisions on the substantial cases. Hence, as far the UK judicial system is concerned, it does not only hold the responsibility to convict and decide the case but it is also responsible for its manipulative decision on a case which reflects in the policy making Take for example, the R v Templecase, the Court of Appeal held that a basis of plea should normally be expected to set out the facts, different to those in the prosecution papers, on which the defendant is prepared to admit his guilt.  The court commented adversely on placing undue reliance on an unsigned basis of plea and drew attention to the importance of the guidance in the case of R v Underwood that recommended on the use of the responsibility for alerting the prosecutor to areas of dispute rests with the defense.1 In addition, as a result of the case R v H and Others, it was decided and regulation was made that if a defendant wishes to be sentenced on a basis which is not agreed, the prosecution advocate should invite the judge not to accept the defendant's version unless he or she gives evidence on oath to be tested in cross-examination.  In such circumstances the defence advocate should be prepared to call the defendant and, if the defendant is not willing to testify, subject to any explanation that may be given, the judge may draw such inferences as appear appropriate.2 Judicial system of UK Having a vital responsibility given to the court, it has to be approachable to a quality decision making simultaneously need to maintain a companionate relation with public. The judicial system needs to provide security to both physical as well as psychological fear emerged due to frequent violence. Hence, the judicial body has the duty to segregate the categories of level of crime and criminals, followed by its conviction and decision for the required sentencing. Further, the duty binds the body to design a secure rehabilitating plan for criminals, so that the general public will be safe from reoccurrence of violence from the convicted criminals. To establish the proportionality of the English sentencing law we need to explore its previous sentencing system. Let us take the example of R v Reynolds and others3.  In this case, the prosecuting advocates were made aware of the impact of statutory provisions simultaneously avoid wrong judgment. The prosecution advocate may also offer assistance to the court by making submissions, in the light of all these factors, as to the appropriate sentencing range. To secure obedience with the above mentioned responsibilities, the prosecutor is required to prepare a plea and sentence document (PSD) to assist the court when sentencing and must be compiled with in all cases to which it applies.4 Eventually, to improve the sentencing system in UK, Sentencing Council (SC) came into being on 6 April 2010, replacing both the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council.  It produces Guidelines, which all sentencing courts must follow as persection 125.5Those are as follows: The defendant's age, background, present circumstances and previous convictions. Any explanatory factors disclosed by the prosecution case. Any statutory provisions relevant to the offender and the offences under consideration. Any relevant sentencing guidelines and guideline cases. Any appropriate additional orders, such as compensation, restitution and forfeiture orders, when considering which additional orders to apply for, prosecution advocates must always have regard to the victim's needs, including the question of his or her future protection. The views of any victim through the Victim Personal Statement.6 Yet, UK sentencing system faces criticism from time to time, as Jack Straw comments, ‘The truth is that, sentencing practice is complicated and is bound to be so, but I found that, without any other information, neither the public nor sentence giver had a clear idea of the penalties for particular types of behaviour. That explains the significant variation in the attitude of the courts to similar offences and similar offenders’.7 Furthermore, giving indication to the threshold on the sentencing system which provides a discretionary power to the judges, PeterLodder says,‘As to the constitutional propriety, obviously judges are there to follow and to act according to the law. If this is the law then a judge is obliged to follow it. But it creates a tension in the sense that, as a member of the judiciary, the judge is supposed to have some discretion to assess the sentence that would be imposed as against the circumstances of the offender and the circumstances more generally of the offence. We have indicated in our response our unease with the way in which there has been a reversal of the existing situation into the position in which a judge is directed to follow the guidelines. We feel, first, that this is an unnecessary change and, secondly, that is undesirable because it will create a form of straitjacket on judicial discretion which we do not think is a good thing’.8 So far, we have apparently noticed that the framework seem to have an ineffective utility in short prison sentences. In the case of less than 12 months, only half of such sentences are served. Further their release is automatic and the second half is subject to none of the conditions. Often Home Detention Curfew is shorter than it is actually required.9 Primarily, the sentences seem to have been given to serve the needs of punishment but not to rehabilitate. As the given time is so limited that the Prison Service has to concentrate onaccommodation and containment and even in thesecond half of the sentence there is no time to make meaningful plan which can make, after being release worthwhile. Lack of such programs certainly leads to the chances of re-occurrence of the offences by released criminals.10 Furthermore, there are certain guidelines regarding sentencing, which is as under: The severity of the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the relevant offences, and the offender’s criminal history. The seriousness of the offence should reflect theharm caused, threatened or risked, and theoffender’s degree of culpability in committing the offence. The severity of the sentence should increase as a consequence of sufficiently recent and relevant previous convictions. A prison sentence should be imposed only when no other sentence would be adequate to reflect the need for punishment. Non-custodial sentences including financial penalties should be used, when they are adequately punitive, in ways designed to reduce the risk of re-offending and protect the public.11 The current law relating to the sentencing of adult offenders is largely contained in the criminal justice act 2003. The Act aimed to provide a clearer and more flexible sentencing framework and sets out: The reduction in sentence for a guilty plea The principles relating to previous convictions and offences committed on bail. Statutory aggravating factors.12 On observance of the above facts, it seems that sentencing legislation is set to fit the prison’s capacity that has opened for the criminals to get the release before the sentence period. In addition, the maximum sentence that may be imposed in the magistrates’ court is six months imprisonment for a single offence, a year for two or more offences or a fine of up to ?5,000. In the Crown Court the maximum sentence that may be imposed is life, where the offence justifies such a sentence or an unlimited fine. They have only six months of maximum custody maximum offenders. And it is the result of poor prison management, as the increasing pace of sentencing is estimated to cost ?23 million extra per annum, and require 720 more prison places (nearly twice as many) by comparison with the preferred maximum of three months. However, that, prison management is not much important in comparison to re-offending risks, which general public bears. Easily released offenders would not take the sentencing so seriously and it may lead to the risk of future offending. There is a strong need for proper sentencing periods for different kind of offenders, improved prison system and rehabilitation to motivate the criminals to a general community life. The sentence should not depend on the basis of capacity of prison or any other circumstances but it should fulfill the meaning of detaining and sentencing, so that the chances of offences and re-offences will be lowered in the country. Legislation sets out the maximum sentence for certain offences. This sets the most severe penalty a court can give for an offence and the maximum sentences vary according to the seriousness of the offence. For example: The Theft Act 1968 sets a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment for the offence of theft.13 The Road Traffic Act 1988 sets maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. 14 For some offences, such as murder, robbery and certain sexual offences, legislation provides for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Maximum penalties are intended to be imposed rarely and only in the most serious and extreme cases. For certain offences, legislation also sets a minimum sentence. In each case, the judge or magistrate must decide the appropriate sentence for the offence committed.15 In addition, the current sentencing system lacking the special provision for dangerous offenders has resulted in the increase of re-offending. As in the case of R v Costello, a decision has been taken where, an offender who has been recalled to prison under section. 254 of the Act 2003, fails to be sentenced for a further offence, the court is prohibited by section, 265 of the Act 2003from ordering that any new period of imprisonment commences on the expiry of the sentence which has been the subject of early release and recall.  The former power under section, 116, Powers of Criminal Courts, (Sentencing Act 2000), which allowed the court to order the offender to return to custody to serve the balance of his sentence, was not reproduced in the 2003 regime. Hence, as a result, the offender is subject to the 2003 provisions, any new sentence will be served, at least in part, concurrently with the old sentence to which he has been recalled.16 Hence, from the details we have discussed above, it has become apparent that the legislation, that judges and magistrates have discretion in sentencing. Further, prisons are lacking authenticity leading to the poor rehabilitation and premature release; whichhas increased the risk of reoccurrence of offences. Here, it can be said that the sentencing in UK is unable to achieve the expected success in controlling the level of offences, which it is supposed to attain. As the data shows that, 44% of offenders were reconvicted for standard list offence within 2 years of a conditional discharge.17 Since, we have already discussed about how the decisions and sentencing confined by the court affects country’s legislation; accordingly, the court should enhance the quality of sentencing, not just for the sake of punishment, but for the peace and security of the Nation. Bibliography 1. R v Underwood, 2005, 1, Court of Appeal, 90. Consolidated Criminal Practices Direction, Para, IV, 45, 10 to IV, 45, and 15. R v Temple, 2008, EWCA Crime, 2511. 2. R v H and Others, 2009, EWCA Crime 2485. 3. R v Reynolds and others, 2007, EWCA Crime, 538. 4. R v Reynolds and others, 2007, EWCA Crime, 538. 5. Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction, Para IV, 45. 6. Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, Section, 125. 7. Jack Straw, 26/1/09, Commons Hansard, column, 38. 8. Peter lodder, 26/1/09, Commons Hansard, column, 121. 9. Sentencing Reforms, Prison Sentences less than 12 months, 2010, 3, Column 1. 10. Sentencing Reforms, Prison Sentences less than 12 months, 2010, 3, Column 2. 11. The Criminal Justice act, 2003Section, 152. 12. The Criminal Justice Act, 2003, Section, 154. 13. The Theft Act 1968, section, 7. 14. The Road Traffic Act, 1988, section, 1. 15. The Criminal Justice Act, 2003, section, 154. 16. R v Costello, 2/3/ 2010, Court of Appeal. 17. Sentencing Reforms, Prison Sentences less than 12 months, 2010, Column 19. Read More