Sentencing guidelines have been slowly evolving in England and Wales since 1998. Definitive guidelines now exist for all common offences. This jurisdiction is the only one outside the United States to develop formal, numerical guidelines which are presumptively binding on courts. Despite their unique status – as the only alternative to the grid-based schemes found in many US states – the English guidelines have attracted almost no attention from sentencing scholars. This article describes the latest developments in England and Wales. As a result of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 much has changed: a new departure test has been created, and the old statutory bodies have been replaced by a single new Council which has issued a new format of guideline which will become the model to replace the old format. These important changes are discussed and some lessons drawn for other jurisdictions seeking to structure sentencing without resort to the two dimensional sentencing grids found across the United States.
AbadeeA (2008) The New South Wales Sentencing Council. In: FreibergAGelbK (eds) Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy. Cullompton: Willan.
2.
Ashcroft, Lord (2011) Crime, Punishment and the People. London: House of Lords.
3.
AshworthA (2006) The sentencing guideline system in England and Wales. South African Journal of Criminal Justice19: 1–23.
4.
AshworthA (2010a) Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
AshworthA (2010b) Coroners and Justice Act 2009: Sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Council. Criminal Law Review5: 389–401.
6.
Ashworth A and Wasik M (2010) Ten years of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. In: Annual Report. Available at: www.sentencing.council.org.
7.
Canadian Sentencing Commission (1987) Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
8.
Carter, Lord (2007) Securing the Future: Proposals for the Efficient and Sustainable Use of Custody in England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.
9.
CooperJ (2008) The Sentencing Guidelines Council: A practical perspective. Criminal Law Review4: 277–286.
10.
Criminal Policy Unit (2010) Consultation on a Sentencing Guidelines Mechanism. Belfast: Northern Ireland Department of Justice.
11.
DarbyshireP (2000) The mischief of plea bargaining and sentence rewards. Criminal Law ReviewSeptember: 895–910.
12.
DawesWHarveyPMcIntoshBNunneyFPhillipsA (2011) Attitudes to Guilty Plea Reductions. London: Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Available at: www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk.
13.
DingwallG (2008) Deserting desert? Locating the present role of retributivism in the sentencing of adult offenders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice47: 400–410.
14.
DoobAN (2011) The unfinished work of the Canadian Sentencing Commission. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 53: 279–298.
15.
FlatleyJKershawCSmithKChaplinRMoonD (2010) Crime in England and Wales 2009/10. London: Home Office.
16.
FraseR (2005) Sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, 1978–2003. In: TonryM (ed.) Crime and Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gazal-AyalOKannaiR (2010) Determination of starting sentences in Israel: System and application. Federal Sentencing Reporter22: 232–242.
19.
HogarthJ (1971) Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
20.
HoughMRobertsJV (1998) Attitudes to Punishment Findings from the 1996 British Crime Survey. Research Findings. London: Home Office.
21.
HuttonNTataC (2010) A sentencing exception? Changing sentencing policy in Scotland. Federal Sentencing Reporter22: 272–278.
22.
JacobsonJRobertsJVHoughM (2008) Towards more consistent and predictable sentencing in England and Wales. In: HoughMAllenRSolomonE (eds) Tackling Prison Overcrowding: Build More Prisons? Sentence Fewer Offenders?. Bristol: The Policy Press.
23.
LaceyN (2008) The Prisoners’ Dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Law Commission of New Zealand (2006) Sentencing Guidelines and Parole Reform. Wellington: Law Commission of New Zealand.
MillieAJacobsonJHoughM (2005) Understanding the growth in the prison population in England and Wales. In: EmsleyC (ed.) The Persistent Prison. London: Francis Boutle.
27.
Ministry of Justice (2009) Story of the Prison Population 1995–2009. London: Ministry of Justice.
28.
Ministry of Justice (2010a) Criminal Statistics: England and Wales 2009. London: Ministry of Justice. London: Ministry of Justice. Available at: www.justice.gov.uk.
29.
Ministry of Justice (2010b) Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders. London: Ministry of Justice. . Available at: www.justice.gov.uk.
30.
Ministry of Justice (2010c) Green Paper Evidence Report. London: Ministry of Justice. Available at: www.justice.gov.uk.
31.
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (2010) Sentencing Practices. Annual Summary Statistics for Felony Offenders Sentenced in 2009. St Paul, MN: MSGC.
32.
New South Wales Sentencing Council (2009) Reduction in Penalties at Sentence. Sydney: New South Wales Sentencing Council.
33.
ParkH (2009) The Basic Features of the First Korean Sentencing Guidelines. Seoul: Korean Ministry of Justice.
34.
RaineJDunstanE (2009) How well do sentencing guidelines work? Equity, proportionality and consistency in the determination of fine levels in the magistrates’ courts of England and Wales. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice48: 13–36.
35.
RobertsJV (1988) Public Opinion and Sentencing: Surveys by the Canadian Sentencing Commission. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.
36.
RobertsJV (2008) Aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing: Towards greater consistency of application. Criminal Law ReviewApril: 264–276.
37.
RobertsJV (2011) Sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion: Evolution of the duty of courts to comply in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology51: 997–1013.
38.
RobertsJVColeD (eds) (1999) Making Sense of Sentencing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
39.
RobertsJVHoughM (2005) Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
40.
RobertsJVRaffertyA (2011) Structured sentencing in England and Wales: Exploring the new guideline format. Criminal Law Review9: 680–689.
41.
Sentencing Commission for Scotland (2006) The Scope to Improve Consistency of Sentencing. Glasgow: Sentencing Commission for Scotland.
42.
Sentencing Commission Working Group (2008a) Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: An Evolutionary Approach. London: SCWG.
43.
Sentencing Commission Working Group (2008b) A Summary of Responses to the Sentencing Commission Working Group’s Consultation Paper. London: SCWG.
Sentencing Working Group of Northern Ireland (2010) Monitoring and Developing Sentencing Guidance in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Northern Ireland Department of Justice.
46.
StemenDRengifoA (2011) Policies of imprisonment: The impact of structured sentencing and determinate sentencing on state incarceration rates, 1978–2004. Justice Quarterly28: 174–201.
47.
TerblancheS (2003) Sentencing guidelines for South Africa: Lessons from elsewhere. South African Law Journal120: 858–882.
48.
TonryM (2003) Evidence, elections and ideology in the making of criminal justice policy. In: TonryM (ed.) Confronting Crime. Cullompton: Willan.
49.
TonryM (2004) Punishment and Politics. Cullompton: Willan.
50.
Von HirschAAshworthA (2005) Proportionate Sentencing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
Von HirschAAshworthARobertsJV (eds) (2009) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
52.
WasikM (2008) Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales: State of the Art?. Criminal Law Review4: 253–263.
