Sentence THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES NEWSLETTER MAY 2005 ISSUE 02

Transcription

1 the Sentencing Guidelines Council MAY 2005 ISSUE 02 The Sentencing Guidelines Council is acutely aware of the growing need for research and statistical information about sentencing as sentencers and local criminal justice groups grapple with the issue of consistency and effectiveness. This newsletter is the first in a series of biannual publications which will provide both national and local level sentencing data. We hope that this series will provide a basis on which sentencers can have an informative debate about sentencing patterns in their own areas. In this edition, we present analysis produced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Research, Development and Statistics directorate at the Home Office. The statistics provide a picture of sentencing of adults over a decade, from 1993 to This period has been chosen to cover the impact of the sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act The information here is presented in four main sections: PART 1: National trends in sentencing: An overview of sentencing trends in magistrates courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales is included as well SENTENCING TRENDS Local court area comparisons Sentencing Guidelines Council The data on this CD is in Microsoft Excel Any queries should be addressed to the Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat, 85 Buckingham Gate, London, SW1E 6PD. Tel: info@sentencing-guidelines.gsi.gov.uk as some trend data for key indicator offences (pp2-7). PART 2: Impact of sentencing on correctional services: How sentencing impacts on prison numbers and probation resources is shown (pp8). PARTS 3 & 4: Criminal Justice System Area and local court level comparisons: Sentencing data for 2003 is presented to help stimulate discussion about sentencing patterns. Further court level trend data can be found on the attached CD. Readers should look at how practice in their own court varies from the national average, the CJS area as a whole and other areas that have similar features, often described as a criminal justice family. It is important to explore the reasons for any differences, and in light of your discussions, to examine whether practice needs to change (pp9-11 & CD). We plan to meet demand for more court level data in future editions of this newsletter and would like to hear from recipients about the sort of information that would be valuable. Please send any comments to Nita Bhupal, Senior Research Officer, at nita.bhupal@sentencing-guidelines.gsi.gov.uk To share your views on any aspect of the work of the Council or Panel please contact: Kevin McCormac Head of Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat, 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD Telephone: Or info@sentencing-guidelines.gsi.gov.uk May 2005 issue 2 1 Sentencing data is for indictable offences for adults only (aged 18 and over). 2 Over this period there have been many other legislative changes and policies or announcements also affecting sentencing.

2 PART 1: NATIONAL TRENDS IN SENTENCING SENTENCING TRENDS IN THE CROWN COURT Chart 1: Use of s in the Crown Court, % 90% 80% 70% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 34% 32% 30% 26% 27% 27% 26% 25% 26% 28% 30% 60% 50% 40% 30% 49% 53% 56% 61% 61% 61% 63% 64% 64% 63% 60% 20% 10% 0% Other Fine Community sentences Immediate custody Year Immediate custody 31,985 34,804 38,532 41,061 43,698 44,413 43,698 43,041 41,777 43,709 41,974 Community sentences 22,021 21,497 20,460 17,738 19,559 19,578 17,969 17,075 17,104 19,043 20,765 Fine 3,601 3,501 3,254 2,623 2,609 2,481 1,978 1,731 1,778 1,705 1,898 Other 7,196 6,484 6,391 5,662 5,872 5,917 5,584 5,169 4,729 4,670 5,130 Total 64,803 66,286 68,637 67,084 71,738 72,389 69,229 67,016 65,388 69,127 69,767 Between 1993 and 2003 the Crown Court sentenced around 65,000 to 72,000 adult offenders each year. The first half of the decade saw a steady rise in the numbers sentenced reaching a peak in The following years up to 2001 saw a decline which has been reversed in recent years. The use of custody has increased over this period from 49% in 1993 to 60% in Across the period of , the use of custody has fluctuated little between 61% and 64%. In comparison, the use of community sentences has decreased from 34% in 1993 to 30% in 2003, although it was as low as 25% in 2000 (see Chart 1). length (months) Chart 2: Crown Court Average Custodial Length (Excluding life sentences)

3 The average length of a custodial sentence has risen each year over this period from just over 20 months in 1993 to nearly 27 months in 2003 (see Chart 2). There has been a decline in the average time served by offenders. In 1993 a prisoner sentenced to 20 months imprisonment served on average 10.6 months (including remand time). In 2003, a prisoner served on average 9.3 months. 3 The number of offenders sentenced to life imprisonment has more than doubled. This reflects in part the automatic life sentence for second serious sexual and violent offences introduced in 1997 (see Chart 3). Chart 3: Number of people sentenced to Life Imprisonment Number of people sentenced to life imprisonment SENTENCING TRENDS IN MAGISTRATES COURT Prison Statistics for ages 21 years and over. This data includes those released on HDC. It excludes discharges following recall after release on licence, non-criminals, persons committed to custody for non-payment of fines and persons reclassified as adult prisoners. Chart 4: Use of s in Magistrates Courts, Indictable Offences, % 90% 27% 25% 24% 23% 24% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 25% 80% 70% 60% 46% 43% 42% 40% 40% 39% 38% 35% 33% 33% 33% 50% 40% 30% 20% 21% 24% 25% 26% 26% 26% 26% 27% 28% 28% 26% 10% 0% 6% 7% 9% 10% 11% 12% 14% 15% 16% 16% 16% Other Fine Community sentences Immediate custody Year Immediate custody 11,289 14,407 17,117 18,769 22,056 26,810 29,849 31,613 32,263 35,242 33,790 Community sentences 43,832 50,295 47,301 48,906 50,953 55,976 58,094 56,864 57,359 59,798 57,434 Fine 93,935 88,944 80,140 75,907 79,144 84,989 82,812 73,041 68,555 71,358 71,888 Other 55,947 51,869 45,047 43,879 47,338 49,915 49,771 47,088 48,032 50,889 53,643 Total 205, , , , , , , , , , ,755 Over the decade, the numbers sentenced for indictable offences in magistrates court has ranged between approximately 187,500 and 220,500 each year. The use of custody has increased from 6% in 1993 to 16% in From 2001 the use of custody has remained constant at 16%. The use of community sentences has also increased from 21% in 1993 to 28% in 2002, before falling back to 26% in This coincides with the use of fines falling from 46% in 1993 to 33% in

4 The average sentence length for those sentenced to immediate custody fell sharply between 1993 and 1998, from 3.2 months to 2.6 months. From 1998 to 2003 the average sentence length has remained fairly constant at 2.5 months (see Chart 5). TRENDS FOR INDICATOR OFFENCES Offence groups used when reporting statistics contain a varied range of offences, e.g. violence against the person, which ranges from murder to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Changes over time in sentencing for these offence groups may reflect changes in the overall composition of offences within a group rather than changes in sentencing practice. In order to allow for more meaningful comparisons over time, indicator offences have been selected that reflect high volume offences that have a range of sentencing options and generate high numbers sent to custody. However, it should be noted that statistical data does not record severity of offences (e.g. robbery, could have become more violent over the years) which can also have a bearing on sentencing. In selecting the indicator offences, the difference in the mix of case workload in magistrates courts as opposed to that in the Crown Court has been taken into account. Thus a different set of indicator offences have been produced for magistrates courts and for the Crown Court respectively. The basis for this choice is addressed in the relevant sections that follow. Chart 5: Magistrates Court Average Length (Indictable Offences only) length (months) TRENDS FOR INDICATOR OFFENCES IN THE CROWN COURT The key indicator offences identified for the Crown Court are those where there is a combination of high numbers sentenced to custody and long sentence lengths. Table 1: Sentencing trends for Indicator Offences in the Crown Court Offence Total d Immediate Custody % d to Average Community Fine Other Length in Months Burglary in a building other than in a dwelling % 45% 2% 5% % 23% 0% 3% % 25% 0% 1% % 29% 0% 2% 17.8 Burglary in a dwelling % 33% 0% 3% % 21% 0% 2% % 22% 0% 1% % 29% 0% 2% 24.5 Dangerous driving % 32% 13% 5% % 30% 7% 3% % 30% 5% 3% % 33% 4% 3% 10.5 Handling stolen goods % 49% 8% 14% % 41% 5% 8% % 45% 3% 7% % 47% 4% 8% 13.2 Robbery % 10% 0% 1% % 8% 0% 1% % 7% 0% 1% % 9% 0% 2% 44.4 Theft from shops % 41% 14% 24% % 34% 5% 11% % 31% 4% 10% % 34% 4% 13% 7.6 4

5 As shown in Table 1, burglary in a dwelling accounted for the highest number of offenders being given custody for a single offence. This accounted for almost 14% of all offenders sent to custody from the Crown Court. Robbery (with longer sentence lengths) accounted for the highest proportion (16%) of prison places generated from the Crown Court in There has been a clear decline in the number of cases sentenced for burglary in a building other than a dwelling and handling stolen goods. For burglary in a dwelling, dangerous driving and robbery the numbers sentenced increased significantly from 1993 to 2002 and have stayed fairly constant or dropped a little in For all offences there has been a considerable increase in the custody rate between 1993 and The only exception has been robbery which has always had a high custody rate. Most of the increase in custody rate occurred between 1993 and 1998 with little change up to 2002 and a slight drop in As with the trend for sentencing as a whole, community sentences have been used less for these offences over the decade. However, they have been used more in 2003 than in the previous year. Average sentence lengths for these offences in 2003 are considerably higher than in The largest increase has been for burglary in a dwelling from 15.3 months in 1993 to 24.5 months in TRENDS FOR INDICATOR OFFENCES IN MAGISTRATES COURTS The criteria for selection of indicator offences for magistrates courts were based on offences that are generally non-violent but resulted in large numbers receiving a custodial sentence. These included some summary offences. Table 2: Sentencing trends for Indicator Offences in Magistrates Courts Offence % d to Average Total Immediate Community d Fine Other Length in Custody Months Dangerous driving % 30% 54% 3% % 41% 37% 3% % 48% 20% 3% % 52% 18% 2% 4.3 Driving whilst disqualified % 46% 24% 6% % 45% 7% 4% % 47% 5% 3% % 50% 5% 4% 3.5 Handling stolen goods % 29% 42% 24% % 40% 26% 20% % 42% 18% 18% % 42% 19% 20% 2.7 Theft from a person % 26% 37% 27% % 30% 24% 21% % 33% 17% 19% % 33% 17% 21% 2.9 Theft from a vehicle % 27% 45% 24% % 36% 28% 17% % 38% 18% 17% % 36% 19% 17% 2.8 Theft from shops % 13% 51% 33% % 23% 33% 28% % 27% 24% 27% % 26% 24% 29% 2.1 Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle % 40% 27% 17% % 38% 20% 12% % 37% 18% 12% % 35% 19% 13% 2.8 Other theft and unauthorised taking % 22% 42% 31% % 31% 31% 25% % 36% 23% 23% % 34% 23% 25% 2.6 Between 1993 and 2003 the number sentenced for all indicator offences, apart from driving whilst disqualified, theft from a person and theft from shops, has decreased. Custody rates have increased dramatically for all offences, with a small fall back in 2003, in most cases. Theft from shops resulted in the largest number of offenders being sent to custody from magistrates courts in Almost 42% (14,103) of all offenders sent to custody from magistrates courts for indictable offences were sentenced for this offence. 5

6 Driving whilst disqualified (a summary motoring offence) had the second largest number of offenders (13,528) sentenced to custody from magistrates courts. The proportion of community sentences given has also increased for all offences apart from unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle, for which it has declined slightly. Use of the fine has fallen considerably. During this period, dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified have both seen increases in the average length of custodial sentences. Although recorded crime figures do not always reflect the patterns observed in sentencing, some of the changes in the number sentenced are reflected in the recorded crime statistics: The number of recorded robberies has grown from nearly 58,000 in 1993 to just over 108,000 in 2002/03, an increase of 86%. This may reflect the impact of the street crime initiative. Handling stolen goods has decreased from 50,500 in 1993 to 18,600 in 2002/03, a decrease of 63%. Burglary in a dwelling decreased by 40% to 434,000 in 2002/03 and burglary in a building other than a dwelling decreased by 30% to 450,000 in 2002/03 Theft from shops rose by 12% from 1993 to 2002/03 reaching 309,000. Theft from a person has increased almost three-fold between 1993 and 2002/03, reaching 135,000. Theft from a vehicle and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle has fallen 29% (926,000 in 1993) and 48% (593,000 in 1993) respectively between 1993 and 2002/03. FIRST TIME OFFENDERS Table 3: First Time Offenders d for Indicator Offences in the Crown Court Crown Court Number d (national figures) Changes in sentencing for dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified may be partially explained by the increase in traffic on our roads, which has risen by 20% approximately between 1993 and However, casualties where car users were killed or seriously injured fell from approximately 22,800 in 1993 to 18,700 in % First Time Offenders (sample data) Number d (national figures) % First Time Offenders (sample data) Burglary in a dwelling 24, % 26, % Burglary in a building other than a dwelling 10, % 5, % Robbery 9, % 12, % Theft from shops 5, % 6, % Handling stolen goods 17, % 7, % Dangerous driving 4, % 5, % Table 4: First Time Offenders d for Indicator Offences in Magistrates Courts Magistrates Courts Number d (national figures) % First Time Offenders (sample data) Number d (national figures) % First Time Offenders (sample data) Theft from a person 5, % 8, % Theft from a vehicle 11, % 8, % Theft from shops 121, % 203, % Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle Other theft and unauthorised taking 13, % 10, % 49, % 28, % Handling stolen goods 50, % 25, % Dangerous driving * * 6, % Driving whilst disqualified * * 78, % The percentage of first time offenders sentenced for indicator offences has generally risen between and with the exception of theft from shops, theft from a vehicle and handling stolen goods at magistrates courts where the proportion of first time offenders has dropped a little (see Table 4). 6

7 Table 5: Disposal Of First Time Offenders: compared to * Custody Community Fine Other Total No. % No. % No. % No. % Burglary in a building other than a dwelling CC CC Burglary in a dwelling CC CC Handling stolen goods CC CC MC MC Robbery CC CC Other theft and unauthorised taking MC MC Theft from a person MC MC Theft from a vehicle MC MC Theft from shops MC 1, MC 3, , , * Note: data are based on a nine-week sample; data are based on a 16 week sample, therefore actual numbers should be compared with caution. Table 5 compares disposals for first time offenders for selected offences (those with 50 or more sentenced in ) for and The percentage of first time offenders sentenced to custody for indicator offences has risen between and , and there have been increases in community sentences at magistrates courts and decreases for fines. This reflects the trend in sentencing as a whole. The figures on first time offenders are based on a sample from the Offenders Index. Previous convictions are only counted if they are for an offence on the Standard List which includes all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences. 7

8 PART 2: IMPACT OF SENTENCING ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PRISONS Changes in both custody rates and sentence lengths have been reflected in the large increase in the sentenced prison population over the last 10 years. The total sentenced prison population has grown from 33,046 in June 1993 to 52,269 in June 1998, 57,306 in June 2002, 59,439 in June 2003 and 60,976 in June Magistrates courts have a relatively smaller impact on the daily prison population but a higher impact on prison throughput, i.e. receptions and discharges. In 2003, 10% of the average daily sentenced prison population, as of the end of June, were under sentences of less than or equal to six months this was the same as in However, 59% of all custodial sentences came from magistrates courts in This compared to 43% in Offenders sentenced at the Crown Court account for the vast majority of the prison population with both sentence lengths and custody rates having an impact and with prisoners on medium to long term sentences having the greatest impact. In 2003, 41,947 adult offenders were sentenced to custody at the Crown Court with an average sentence length of 27 months. One month s increase or decrease in the average sentence length changes the adult sentenced prison population by approximately 1,600. The average custody rate for adults at the Crown Court in 2003 was 60%. Changing this rate by one percentage point changes the sentenced prison population by approximately 450. Remand decisions also have an impact on the prison population. The remand population has grown from 10,632 in June 1993 to 12,903 in June 1998, 13,081 in June 2002, and 13,073 in June It has fallen slightly to 12,495 in June The proportion of all offenders remanded in custody at magistrates courts has risen from 2% to 3%, which has increased the number of people remanded in custody from 45,000 in 1993 to 76,000 in Over the same period the proportion committed for trial in custody has risen from 24% to 30%, with numbers committed for trial in custody, increasing from 20,000 to 25, COMMUNITY SENTENCES The majority of community sentences are given at magistrates courts. In 2003, 84% of community sentences were from magistrates courts (all offences). Although use of community sentences has grown at magistrates courts in the last 10 years, from 73,000 in 1993 to 114,600 in 2003, there has not been a substantial change in their use in the five years prior to At the Crown Court, the number of community sentences was 23,000 in 1993 and 22,000 in 2003, with little change in the last five years. There has been a slight upturn in the use of community sentences since 2001, particularly noticeable in high volume offences such as burglary. DTTOs have increased from 100 in 2000 to 2,444 in Community sentences were 30% of sentences given at Crown Court in This proportion fell from 34% in 1993 to 27% in Since then, there have been signs of a slight increase. The total probation caseload (court orders and post-release licences) was 196,000 at the end of 2003 compared with 145,000 at end of The average lengths of CROs and CRO element of CPROs have generally decreased from 1993 to 2001, but there appears to be signs of a slight increase in length of approximately 2% in 2002 and For CPOs the average length of orders has generally decreased from 126 hours in 1993 to 116 hours in The CPO element of CPROs has been relatively constant from 1994 to Prison Statistics for age 15 years and above. 5 Prison Statistics. 6 For all offences and all ages. 7 Prison Statistics for age 15 years and above. 8 The figures are for DTTOs given for all offences at the Crown Court for adults. 9 Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2003 (for all ages). 8

9 PART 3: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AREA COMPARISONS Tables 6 and 7 provide information to allow for area comparisons at the criminal justice area level. Several factors can affect the differences in areas, which are highlighted below: Cautioning practices may affect the numbers coming to court and the mix of offenders dealt with at court. In areas with high cautioning rates more severe sentencing patterns at magistrates courts might be expected although other factors, such as offence mix and detection rates, will also be relevant. Table 6 includes the cautioning rate for those aged 18 or over, i.e. the number of persons cautioned as a proportion of those cautioned or found guilty for indictable offences, for each CJS area in The cautioning rate has decreased from 30% in 1993 to 28% in The data in Table 6 does not indicate a clear relationship between an areas cautioning rate and custody rates at magistrates courts. Some differences between areas may arise from different committal practices. For example, if a magistrates court commits a higher than average proportion of cases to the Crown Court for trial or sentence, the offence mix in both magistrates court and the Crown Court is likely to be less serious than in another area. Table 6 includes the committal for trial rate for either way offences (the percentage of those aged 18 or over proceeded against and committed for trial at the Crown Court). Overall the committal rate has decreased from around 16% between 1993 and 1997 to 12% between 1998 and The decrease was a result of the introduction of plea before venue. There appears to be a tendency for areas that have high committal rates to also have higher than average custody rates and vice versa but the relationship is not very strong. Following plea before venue there was an increase (although smaller than the decrease in committals for trial) in committals for sentence. Table 7 includes the proportion of those sentenced at the Crown Court who were committed for sentence. The data does not show a relationship between custody rates at the Crown Court by area and proportion committed for sentencing. Direct comparisons between areas will be affected by differences in case mix that may exist in each area. This has been taken account of, to a limited extent, in columns (8) 10 and (9) 11 of Table 7 and column (9) of Table 6 where the custodial sentencing figures for an area have been compared with the figures that would result if the national average sentencing pattern applied to each offence group. Areas with a figure higher than the figure produced by applying national average patterns appear to be sentencing more severely than expected given their offence group mix and areas with a figure lower appear to be sentencing less severely than expected given their offence group mix. This measure is different from directly comparing each area s custody rate with the national average. It is calculated using custody rate for each offence group in England and Wales, applying these to each area s offence groups to get an adjusted number to custody for each offence group in an area. Then these adjusted figures across an area s offence groups are totalled to produce one adjusted figure for each area. In magistrates courts, for example, there are areas with the same custody rate sending fewer, about the same or more people to custody than if the national sentencing pattern applied. 10 Prison places generated represents an area's expected actual prison workload. This is derived by taking into account the total number sentenced for each offence and the corresponding custody rate and average sentence length. The figure represents the totality of the workload generated from all these individual offences. 11 The same as 'prison places generated' but assumes that area follows England and Wales averages rather than area specific values. 9

10 Table 6: Magistrates Courts Sentencing Data by Area 2003 (Indictable offences only) Area (1) Total number of people sentenced (2) Immediate Custody (3) % d to Community (4) Fine (5) Other (6) Average sentence length for custodial sentences (months) (7) Number of People to Custody (8) No of People to Custody if Area followed National Average (9) Persons Cautioned as a Proportion of Persons Found Guilty or Cautioned (10) Committed for Trial Rate (Triable either way offences only) (11) E+W % 26% 33% 25% % 12% Avon and Somerset % 26% 22% 34% % 12% Bedfordshire % 31% 19% 27% % 11% Cambridgeshire % 36% 26% 23% % 12% Cheshire % 24% 34% 25% % 11% Cleveland % 26% 24% 40% % 13% Cumbria % 38% 33% 17% % 14% Derbyshire % 34% 24% 23% % 13% Devon and Cornwall % 26% 31% 30% % 11% Dorset % 20% 34% 30% % 8% Durham % 31% 23% 31% % 13% Dyfed Powys % 29% 41% 23% % 8% Essex % 27% 32% 17% % 14% Gloucestershire % 33% 28% 25% % 9% Greater Manchester % 28% 25% 31% % 15% Gwent % 27% 44% 19% % 15% Hampshire % 29% 36% 23% % 11% Hertfordshire % 30% 34% 22% % 14% Humberside % 30% 23% 30% % 13% Kent % 25% 32% 27% % 11% Lancashire % 26% 31% 30% % 9% Leicestershire % 32% 26% 26% % 12% Lincolnshire % 32% 27% 32% % 13% London % 20% 44% 17% % 11% Merseyside % 22% 45% 18% % 9% Norfolk % 29% 29% 30% % 14% North Wales % 29% 41% 18% % 9% North Yorkshire % 32% 25% 29% % 10% Northamptonshire % 30% 21% 30% % 9% Northumbria % 24% 30% 34% % 11% Nottinghamshire % 29% 27% 30% % 9% South Wales % 25% 41% 23% % 9% South Yorkshire % 31% 23% 30% % 13% Staffordshire % 24% 29% 29% % 12% Suffolk % 25% 37% 24% % 8% Surrey % 27% 41% 23% % 15% Sussex % 29% 25% 28% % 19% Thames Valley % 30% 32% 27% % 9% Warwickshire % 40% 25% 24% % 6% West Mercia % 33% 31% 20% % 13% West Midlands % 25% 43% 16% % 12% West Yorkshire % 28% 22% 32% % 10% Wiltshire % 34% 26% 29% % 7% Other (not recorded) % 35% 24% 27%

11 Table 7: Crown Court Sentencing Data by Area 2003 (Indictable offences only) Area 12 (1) Total number of people d (2) Immediate Custody (3) % d to Average sentence Community length for Fine Other custodial (5) (6) sentences (4) (months) (7) Total Prison Places Generated (8) Prison Places Generated if area followed National Average (9) Proportion Committed for (10) E+W % 30% 3% 7% % Avon and Somerset % 29% 3% 11% % Bedfordshire % 23% 3% 5% % Cambridgeshire % 26% 3% 5% % Cheshire % 24% 1% 6% % Cleveland % 30% 2% 9% % Cumbria % 30% 2% 8% % Derbyshire % 33% 2% 8% % Devon and Cornwall % 34% 5% 11% % Dorset % 26% 3% 9% % Durham % 37% 3% 11% % Essex % 29% 3% 10% % Gloucestershire % 42% 2% 6% % Greater Manchester % 36% 2% 7% % Hampshire % 34% 3% 8% % Hertfordshire % 25% 3% 4% % Humberside % 30% 2% 7% % Kent % 21% 2% 8% % Lancashire % 28% 1% 6% % Leicestershire % 38% 3% 7% % Lincolnshire % 32% 3% 9% % London % 26% 4% 7% % Merseyside % 31% 2% 5% % Norfolk % 29% 3% 10% % North Yorkshire % 26% 2% 9% % Northamptonshire % 21% 1% 5% % Northumbria % 35% 3% 9% % Nottinghamshire % 30% 3% 8% % South Wales % 32% 3% 7% % South Yorkshire % 24% 2% 9% % Staffordshire % 31% 3% 6% % Suffolk % 26% 2% 6% % Surrey % 29% 5% 6% % Sussex % 29% 3% 11% % Thames Valley % 32% 2% 7% % Warwickshire % 23% 4% 8% % West Mercia % 28% 3% 5% % West Midlands % 32% 3% 7% % West Yorkshire % 30% 2% 6% % Wiltshire % 33% 2% 5% % PART 4: LOCAL COURT AREA COMPARISONS 12 Crown Court data for North Wales is included in Chester Crown Court, Cheshire and for Dyfed Powys in Swansea, South Wales. The attached CD provides tables with information on sentencing trends for each magistrates court and Crown Court centre in your criminal justice area. Data for all magistrates courts and Crown Court centres in England and Wales, all courts in your area and the other courts in your CJS family are included for comparison. The CJS families have been identified as areas with similar socio-economic, geographic and demographic characteristics. Some courts have closed down, or have been combined with other courts between 1993 and We have aimed to distribute the earlier figures according to the court or district that now deals with the work. Please be aware that in courts where relatively few people are sentenced each year a small change in the figures may have a large impact on the percentage figures. If you do not have a CD attached to this newsletter, the data can be accessed at our website: Alternatively, please contact Gareth Sweny on for a copy. 11

12 To share your views on any aspect of the work of the Council or Panel please contact: Kevin McCormac Head of Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat, 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD Telephone: Or 12