Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence?
When you’re ready, click continue to hear what the judge thinks.
Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence?
When you’re ready, click continue to hear what the judge thinks.
You are about to see a shortened version of a hearing in the Crown Court relating to possession with intent to supply class A drugs.
At the end of the video, you will be asked what sentence you think would be appropriate for the defendant. Throughout the video, look out for aggravating factors and mitigating factors that will influence the sentence. Aggravating factors are circumstances that make the crime more serious. Mitigating factors are circumstances that make the offence less serious or matters relating to the offender that may lead the court to reduce the sentence.
Court clerk
Please stand. Are you Mr James Dickens?
Defendant
That’s right.
Court clerk
You are charged that on the 5th of August last year, you had in your possession a controlled drug of class A, namely ecstasy and cocaine, with intent to supply it to another. You have indicated before today that you plead guilty, is that correct?
Defendant
Yes.
Judge
Thank you. Please sit down everyone.
Prosecution barrister
Your Honour, if I may. I’m Mr Patel, representing the prosecution and my friend on the other side of the bench is Mrs Dray, who will be representing the defendant, Mr Dickens. Shall I start by giving some background to the case?
Judge
Yes, please.
Prosecution barrister
Your Honour, on the 5th of August last year, Mr Dickens was attending a weekend music festival in Hertfordshire. That night, Mr Dickens approached an undercover police officer and offered to sell him drugs. He boasted to undercover police officers about the amount of money he was making and said he could get hold of anything they wanted. This then prompted the onsite police to search Mr Dickens and they found a number of class A drugs on his person. Later searches of Mr Dickens’ phone showed that he was accepting orders for drugs in the days leading up to the festival and was in frequent contact with the person who was supplying him with the drugs. He was arrested and made no comment when interviewed.
Judge
Exactly what drugs was Mr Dickens carrying at the time?
Prosecution barrister
The police found 100 tablets of ecstasy and 14 wraps of cocaine, along with £1,000 in cash and also a burner phone, which he used to take the orders. We would also like the court to note that the festival in question is popular with teenagers who have just completed their GCSEs. The defendant is a well-educated, intelligent, 22-year- old man who was quite content to supply drugs to teenagers as young as 16, thereby putting them at risk.
Judge
Is there anything else? You mentioned there being someone who was supplying Mr Dickens with the drugs, can you elaborate on that?
Prosecution barrister
Yes. Mr Dickens met a gentleman named Greg Sharpe a year before at the same festival, who was supplying Mr Dickens with the drugs. Mr Sharpe has not been apprehended, though inquiries continue.
Defence barrister
That is correct, Your Honour.
Judge
Thank you, Mr Patel. Mrs Dray, I come to you.
Defence barrister
Thank you, Your Honour.
Your Honour, I’m grateful to my friend, Mr Patel, for setting out the case. To add to his last point, the defendant takes full responsibility for the poor decisions that he has made and completely understands the severity of this case and the impact it will have on his life.
Judge
I believe that Mr Dickens did not plead guilty at the first opportunity at the magistrates’ court?
Defence barrister
That is correct. It was after receiving advice from me that he changed his plea to guilty.
If I may? My client had been attending this same music festival for the past four years and it’s clear to anyone familiar with this particular festival that drugs are commonplace. With his previous experience of the festival and seeing how easy it was to get hold of drugs, he thought this was an opportunity for him to make some money without any ramifications. It’s unfortunate that it’s only now that he sees how serious these matters are.
Judge
I see. Is there anything else?
Defence barrister
Only to say that this is Mr Dickens’ first offence and he is deeply sorry for his actions.
Judge
Thank you, both.
Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence? When you’re ready, click ‘continue’ to hear what the judge thinks.
Judge
Stand up please, Mr Dickens.
James Dickens, selling class A drugs is a serious offence, and the case is made more serious due to the fact you were selling drugs to young teenagers. The law in this country bans the possession and sale of these drugs, which can cause great harm to users and to society.
Referring to the sentencing guidelines, the amount of drugs in your possession and the way you were dealing them means this is a category 3 harm case where your role was significant. This leads to a sentence in a range of 3 and a half to 7 years in custody before any reduction for a guilty plea, which in your case would be one quarter of the sentence. This offence clearly crosses the threshold for custody and so the court has no other choice but to impose a prison sentence.
Now you’ve heard the facts of the case and what the judge has to say, what do you think is the appropriate sentence? The judge has indicated that the sentence will be custodial, meaning the defendant will be imprisoned. Please choose one of the four following possibilities:
a) 3 years’ custody
b) 3 and a half years’ custody
c) 5 years’ custody, or
d) 7 years’ custody
Now you’ve made your decision, let’s see what sentence will be handed down.
Judge
The sentencing guideline starting point for this offence is 4 and a half years. The offence is aggravated by the fact that many of the festival goers were children. I note
that you have no previous convictions and are relatively young, and these two mitigating factors mean that I am able to come down from that starting point. The sentence for possession with intent to supply of both the ecstasy and cocaine, adjusted for the aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case, is 4 years.
Although you did not initially plead guilty, you have since done so and have spared the time and expense of a trial. For that, you are entitled to a further reduction on your sentence. With credit for your guilty plea of one quarter, the sentence will be 3 years’ imprisonment. You will also be required to pay the statutory surcharge.
Mr Patel and Mrs Dray, I thank you both.
Court clerk
Court rise.
Now that you’ve heard from the judge, how does this compare with the sentence you picked? If it’s different, what aggravating or mitigating factors could you have missed or weighed differently from the court that might have helped inform your decision? We hope this exercise has helped you understand more about sentencing.
This is a simplified version of the guideline Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug/Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply. You can see the full version of the guideline on the Sentencing Council website.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (section 5(3))
Triable either way unless the defendant could receive the minimum sentence of seven years for a third drug trafficking offence under section 313 of the Sentencing Code, in which case the offence is triable only on indictment.
Class A
Maximum: Life imprisonment
Offence range: High level community order – 16 years’ custody
Class B
Maximum: 14 years’ custody and/ or unlimited fine
Offence range: Band B fine – 10 years’ custody
Class C
Maximum: 14 years’ custody and/ or unlimited fine
Offence range: Band A – 8 years’ custody
This guideline applies to all offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after the effective date of this guideline, regardless of the date of the offence. The maximum sentence that applies to an offence is the maximum that applied at the date of the offence.
This offence is subject to statutory minimum sentencing provisions. See Step 3 for further details.
Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
The court should determine the offender’s culpability (role) and the harm caused (quantity) with reference to the tables below.
In assessing culpability, the sentencer should weigh up all the factors of the case to determine role. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different role categories, or where the level of the offender’s role is affected by the scale of the operation, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender’s culpability.
One or more of these characteristics may demonstrate the offender’s role. These lists are not exhaustive.
In assessing harm, quantity is determined by the weight of the product. Where the offence is supply directly to users (including street dealing or supply in custodial institutions), the quantity of product is less indicative of the harm caused and therefore the starting point is not solely based on quantity. The court should consider all offences involving supplying directly to users as at least category 3 harm, and make an adjustment from the starting point within that category considering the quantity of drugs in the particular case.
Indicative quantities of the most common drugs, upon which the starting point is to be based) are given in the table below. Where a drug (such as fentanyl or its agonists) is not listed in the table below, sentencers should expect to be provided with expert evidence to assist in determining the potency of the particular drug and in equating the quantity in the case with the quantities set out in the guidelines in terms of the harm caused. There will often be no precise calculation possible, but courts are reminded that in cases of particularly potent drugs, even very small quantities may be held to be equivalent to large quantities of the drugs listed.
Selling directly to users
OR
Supply of drugs in a custodial institution
OR
Note – where the offence is selling directly to users or supply in a custodial institution the starting point is not based on quantity – go to category 3
*Ecstasy tablet quantities based on a typical quantity of 150mg MDMA per tablet.
Having determined the category at step one, the court should use the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within the category range below. The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions. A case of particular gravity, reflected by multiple features of culpability or harm in step one, could merit upward adjustment from the starting point before further adjustment for aggravating or mitigating features, set out below.
Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, involving a quantity of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate, depending on the offender’s role.
Sentencers should be aware that there is evidence of a disparity in sentence outcomes for this offence which indicates that a higher proportion of Black, Asian and Other ethnicity offenders receive an immediate custodial sentence than White offenders and that for Asian offenders custodial sentence lengths have on average been longer than for White offenders. There may be many reasons for these differences, but in order to apply the guidelines fairly sentencers may find useful information and guidance at Chapter 8 paragraphs 152 to 167 of the Equal Treatment Bench Book.
| CLASS A | LEADING ROLE | SIGNIFICANT ROLE | LESSER ROLE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category 1 | Starting point 14 years’ custody | Starting point 10 years’ custody | Starting point 7 years’ custody |
| Category range 12 – 16 years’ custody | Category range 9 – 12 years’ custody | Category range 6 – 9 years’ custody | |
| Category 2 | Starting point 11 years’ custody | Starting point 8 years’ custody | Starting point 5 years’ custody |
| Category range 9 – 13 years’ custody | Category range 6 years 6 months’ – 10 years’ custody | Category range 3 years 6 months’ – 7 years’ custody | |
| Category 3 | Starting point 8 years 6 months’ custody | Starting point 4 years 6 months’ custody | Starting point 3 years’ custody |
| Category range 6 years 6 months’ – 10 years’ custody | Category range 3 years 6 months’ – 7 years’ custody | Category range 2 – 4 years 6 months’ custody | |
| Category 4 | Starting point 5 years 6 months’ custody | Starting point 3 years 6 months’ custody | Starting point 18 months’ custody |
| Category range 4 years 6 months’ – 7 years 6 months’ custody | Category range 2 – 5 years’ custody | Category range High level community order – 3 years’ custody |
| CLASS B | LEADING ROLE | SIGNIFICANT ROLE | LESSER ROLE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category 1 | Starting point 8 years’ custody | Starting point 5 years 6 months’ custody | Starting point 3 years’ custody |
| Category range 7 – 10 years’ custody | Category range 5 – 7 years’ custody | Category range 2 years 6 months’ – 5 years’ custody | |
| Category 2 | Starting point 6 years’ custody | Starting point 4 years’ custody | Starting point 1 year’s custody |
| Category range 4 years 6 months’ – 8 years’ custody | Category range 2 years 6 months’ – 5 years’ custody | Category range 26 weeks’ – 3 years’ custody | |
| Category 3 | Starting point 4 years’ custody | Starting point 1 year’s custody | Starting point High level community order |
| Category range 2 years 6 months’ – 5 years’ custody | Category range 26 weeks’ – 3 years’ custody | Category range Low level community order – 26 weeks’ custody | |
| Category 4 | Starting point 18 months’ custody | Starting point High level community order | Starting point Low level community order |
| Category range 26 weeks’ – 3 years’ custody | Category range Medium level community order – 26 weeks’ custody | Category range Band B fine – Medium level community order |
| CLASS C | LEADING ROLE | SIGNIFICANT ROLE | LESSER ROLE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category 1 | Starting point 5 years’ custody | Starting point 3 years’ custody | Starting point 18 months’ custody |
| Category range 4 – 8 years’ custody | Category range 2 – 5 years’ custody | Category range 1 – 3 years’ custody | |
| Category 2 | Starting point 3 years 6 months’ custody | Starting point 18 months’ custody | Starting point 26 weeks’ custody |
| Category range 2 – 5 years’ custody | Category range 1 – 3 years’ custody | Category range 12 weeks’ – 18 months’ custody | |
| Category 3 | Starting point 18 months’ custody | Starting point 26 weeks’ custody | Starting point High level community order |
| Category range 1 – 3 years’ custody | Category range 12 weeks’ – 18 months’ custody | Category range Low level community order – 12 weeks’ custody | |
| Category 4 | Starting point 26 weeks’ custody | Starting point High level community order | Starting point Low level community order |
| Category range High level community order – 18 months’ custody | Category range Low level community order – 12 weeks’ custody | Category range Band A fine – Medium level community order |
The table below contains a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in and upward or downward adjustment from the starting point. In some cases, having considered these factors, it may be appropriate to move outside the identified category range.
There may be exceptional local circumstances that arise which may lead a court to decide that prevalence of drug offending should influence sentencing levels. The pivotal issue in such cases will be the harm caused to the community.
It is essential that the court before taking account of prevalence:
• has supporting evidence from an external source, for example, Community Impact Statements, to justify claims that drug offending is prevalent in their area, and is causing particular harm in that community; and
• is satisfied that there is a compelling need to treat the offence more seriously than elsewhere.
For class A cases, section 313 of the Sentencing Code provides that a court should impose an appropriate custodial sentence of at least seven years for a third class A trafficking offence except:
The court should take into account section 74 of the Sentencing Code (assistance by defendants: reduction or review of sentence) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.
The court should take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea in accordance with section 73 of the Sentencing Code and the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea guideline.
In circumstances where an appropriate custodial sentence of 7 years falls to be imposed under section 313 of the Sentencing Code (third Class A drug trafficking offences), the court may impose any sentence in accordance with this guideline which is not less than 80 per cent of the appropriate custodial period.
If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, or where the offender is already serving a sentence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the offending behaviour. .
Confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 may only be made by the Crown Court. The Crown Court must proceed with a view to making a confiscation order if it is asked to do so by the prosecutor or if the Crown Court believes it is appropriate for it to do so.
Where, following conviction in a magistrates’ court, the prosecutor applies for the offender to be committed to the Crown Court with a view to a confiscation order being considered, the magistrates’ court must commit the offender to the Crown Court to be sentenced there (section 70 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002). This applies to summary only and either-way offences.
Where, but for the prosecutor’s application under s.70, the magistrates’ court would have committed the offender for sentence to the Crown Court anyway it must say so. Otherwise the powers of sentence of the Crown Court will be limited to those of the magistrates’ court.
Confiscation must be dealt with before, and taken into account when assessing, any other fine or financial order (except compensation).
(See Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 sections 6 and 13)
The court should also consider whether to make ancillary orders.
Section 52 of the Sentencing Code imposes a duty to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, the sentence.
The court must consider whether to give credit for time spent on bail in accordance with section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 325 of the Sentencing Code.
Tell us about your experience of using You be the Judge, including accessibility - what works and what doesn’t.
You are about to see a shortened version of a hearing in the Crown Court relating to possession of a firearm.
At the end of the video, you will be asked what sentence you think would be appropriate for the defendant. Throughout the video, look out for aggravating factors and mitigating factors that will influence the sentence. Aggravating factors are circumstances that make the crime more serious. Mitigating factors are circumstances that make the offence less serious or matters relating to the offender that may lead the court to reduce the sentence.
Court clerk
Please stand. Are you Ms Georgia Sheraton?
Defendant
Yes, I am.
Court clerk
You are charged that on the 5th of April last year you were found to be in possession of a handgun in contravention of section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968. How do you plead?
Defendant
Guilty.
Court clerk
Thank you. Please take a seat.
Judge
Mr Ogden, could you take us through the facts of the case?
Prosecution barrister
Certainly, Your Honour. If I may, I’m here today representing the prosecution in this matter and my friend, Mr Payne, is representing the defendant, Ms Sheraton.
Your Honour, on the night of 5th April last year, the police executed a search warrant on Ms Sheraton’s property after receiving information on her partner’s mobile phone. On top of Ms Sheraton’s wardrobe, in a shoebox, they found an unloaded handgun concealed in a sock. Someone had clearly hidden it there. Ms Sheraton says her partner had asked her to look after the box and what she thought was in the box was probably drugs. She also later said she thought that it be a weapon but she wasn’t sure. In any event, she was clearly aware that she was concealing something unlawful and potentially dangerous in her home.
Judge
Was there any ammunition found with the gun?
Prosecution barrister
No, there wasn’t. But the firearms expert who analysed the weapon confirmed that it is a prohibited weapon and was in working order.
Judge
Was Ms Sheraton home at the time of the search?
Prosecution barrister
She was, and according to the police report, Ms Sheraton seemed genuinely surprised at what they had found, and we accept the gun did not belong to her. However, she was in a position where someone felt they could trust her enough to keep a weapon secret in her home.
Judge
The partner?
Prosecution barrister
That’s right. A Mr Perry Marten. He is well known to the local police and is currently serving a lengthy sentence for drug offences.
Judge
Thank you. Is there anything else?
Prosecution barrister
If I may touch on the subject of sentencing, Your Honour. Referring to the sentencing guideline, we would say this is a type 1 firearm: a weapon capable of killing two or more people in rapid succession and which, according to Parliamentary provision, carries a minimum sentence of 5 years. We say that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case or in the defendant’s situation that would mean this minimum sentence should be deviated from.
Judge
Well, I’m sure Mr Payne will want to address me on that point.
Defence barrister
Quite, Your Honour. Firstly, thank you to Mr Ogden for setting out the case.
Your Honour, Ms Sheraton is a kind woman who splits her time between working at her local primary school as a teaching assistant and caring for her sick and elderly mother. She is devoted to both her family and her work and, as we can see from the court papers, she has a number of testimonies to her good character from members of her local community. Ms Sheraton is a victim. She was persuaded by a misplaced sense of loyalty to hide a gun, a weapon for her partner. And it is unfortunate that this momentary error of judgement has placed her in this position, for which she is whole- heartedly sorry. We would urge the court to find that, due to the defendant’s lack of knowledge as to what she was hiding, her good character and her caring responsibilities, that this is an exceptional case and justifies not imposing the minimum 5-year sentence.
Judge
Thank you, Mr Payne. Anything else?
Defence barrister
Just to highlight that this is Ms Sheraton’s first offence. I would also like to come back to something Mr Ogden said about Ms Sheraton not knowing the contents of the box. Ms Sheraton was put in a difficult position and made a very poor decision. She wasn’t one hundred per cent sure exactly what was in the box and chose to remain ignorant of its contents.
Judge
That is noted. Thank you, gentlemen.
Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence? When you’re ready, click ‘continue’ to hear what the judge thinks.
Judge
This is a case relating to the possession of prohibited weapon, specifically an unloaded handgun. The type of weapon, and the fact that there was a possibility that it would be used for a criminal purpose, puts this in high culpability in the sentencing guideline. As no alarm or distress was caused, this case falls into category 3 harm. The starting point for this offence in the guidelines is 6 years’ custody, but the real issue here is whether there are exceptional circumstances that mean that the court can go below the 5-year minimum sentence set by Parliament.
Now that you’ve heard the facts of the case and what the judge has to say, what do you think is the appropriate sentence? Please choose one of the four following possibilities:
a) 2 years’ custody, suspended for two years, meaning the defendant will not go to prison immediately but could do so if they commit another offence within the next two years, and they must comply with any requirements set by the court
b) 3 years’ custody, meaning the defendant will be imprisoned
c) 5 years’ custody, meaning the defendant will be imprisoned
d) 6 years’ custody, meaning the defendant will be imprisoned
Now you’ve made your decision, let’s see what sentence will be handed down.
Judge
Georgia Sheraton, please stand. Firearms such as these are prohibited in this country for very good reason. There is no legitimate purpose for owning such a lethal weapon. The law states that this offence carries a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison.
According to the sentencing guideline, the starting point for this offence is 6 years, with a range of between 5 and 7 years. The mitigating factors here are your good character, as evidenced in the many positive testimonies presented to the court. You also pleaded guilty, which spared the court from having to proceed with a full trial.
However, where usually a guilty plea could lead to a reduction in sentence of up to a third, for this type of serious case, the law states that your plea of guilty does not entitle you to any reduction in sentence that would take the sentence below the 5- year minimum. Mr Payne referred to this as a ‘momentary error of judgement’, and that may be the case, but I do not agree that your circumstances are exceptional or in any way give me cause to deviate from the minimum term. Because of this, I am left with no choice but to sentence you to 5 years’ imprisonment. You will also have to pay the statutory surcharge.
Mr Payne, Mr Ogden, thank you for your input.
Court clerk
Court rise.
Now that you’ve heard from the judge and seen how seriously the law treats offences related to firearms, how does this compare with the sentence you picked? If it’s different, what aggravating or mitigating factors could you have missed or weighed differently from the court? Did you notice there was no suggestion that Georgia was coerced in any way? She made her own decision to hide the gun. We hope this exercise has helped you understand more about sentencing.
You are about to see a shortened version of a hearing in the magistrates’ court relating to fraud.
At the end of the video, you will be asked what sentence you think would be appropriate for the defendant. Throughout the video, look out for aggravating factors and mitigating factors that will influence the sentence. Aggravating factors are circumstances that make the crime more serious. Mitigating factors are circumstances that make the offence less serious or matters relating to the offender that may lead the court to reduce the sentence.
Legal adviser
Please stand. Are you Deborah King?
Defendant
Yes.
Legal adviser
You have previously pleaded guilty to a charge that between the 4th of January 2022 and the 15th of March 2022, being a person who occupied a position of trust, you dishonestly abused that position to make a gain for yourself and a loss to Mrs Edna Moseley of £1,500. Please sit.
Presiding justice
Good morning, we have asked for a pre-sentence report to be prepared by the Probation Service and now that we have this, we can proceed to sentence today.
Mr Pryce, could you please set out the facts of the case?
Prosecutor
Certainly, your worships. As you know, I represent the prosecution in this case, Mrs Denali represents the defendant, Ms King. The defendant worked as a carer at the Mansion Lodge residential home where Mrs Moseley was living.
Presiding justice
Is Mrs Moseley still a resident there?
Prosecutor
She is indeed. Whilst working on shift, the defendant took Mrs Moseley’s bank card and, over a 10-week period, went on to withdraw £1,500 from her bank account. Mrs Moseley’s bank statements show the money leaving the account on six separate occasions. Now, it wasn’t until Mrs Moseley’s son checked his mother’s bank account that he realised these large sums of money were being withdrawn. The police were informed, and Ms King was then caught on CCTV withdrawing money using Mrs Moseley’s bank card at a nearby supermarket, a mere three minutes’ walk from Mansion Lodge. Ms King was arrested and in interview she admitted everything to the police. She has no previous convictions or cautions.
Presiding justice
Thank you. Is there anything else?
Prosecutor
Your worships, I would like to add that Mrs Moseley’s son has not informed his mother of what has happened. She was extremely fond of the defendant and this information may cause her to become distressed. This, I feel, adds to the aggravating factors in this case. Ms King had built up a strong and trusting relationship with Mrs Moseley and abusing that trust makes this case that much more serious.
Presiding justice
Thank you, Mr Pryce.
Now, Mrs Denali, I’d like to hear what you have to say.
Defence lawyer
Thank you. I’m here today representing the defendant, Ms Deborah King and I’m grateful to my friend for setting out the facts of the case.
Before I start, I would like the court to note that once Ms King was arrested, she made a full admission and has shown nothing but remorse for her actions. This is a woman who has never been in trouble with the law before and is deeply ashamed of what she has done.
Presiding justice
This is noted. Do carry on, Mrs Denali.
Defence lawyer
Thank you. I can pass up copies of the defendant’s bank statements. Now, they will show that she was using the money she had taken to send to her mother, who sadly now has passed away, but who at the time was suffering from dementia and living in a different country.
The defendant was desperate to help support her mother and was unable to travel due to her financial situation. She is showing this remorse by promising to return Mrs Moseley’s money in its entirety.
Presiding justice
Does the Defendant have a job? I presume she is no longer working at the care home.
Defence lawyer
That’s correct. Ms King is now working in a supermarket and she is unable to return to her career as a carer as she now has this conviction. This, we say, should be taken into account when deciding her sentence.
Presiding justice
And how does Ms King intend to pay back the amount?
Defence lawyer
Ms King has managed to save £400, which she can pay straight away. She then intends to make monthly payments until the full amount is paid. One more point, if I
may, as we heard in the pre-sentence report, the Probation Service has assessed Ms King and found that she is unlikely to offend again.
Presiding justice
Thank you both, if there is nothing else, we will confer.
Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence? When you’re ready, click ‘continue’ to hear what the magistrates think.
Presiding justice
Ms King, please stand.
Ms King, taking advantage of an elderly resident in your care and defrauding her of
£1,500 is a very serious offence.
Because you abused your position of trust this case falls into high culpability with category 5 harm, where the starting point in the sentencing guidelines of 36 weeks’ custody is based on a loss or intended loss of £2,500. A category 5 harm case sits at the lower end of the scale. The mitigating factors here are your good character, the difficult circumstances you found yourself in regarding your ill mother, your low risk of reoffending and the fact that you have lost a job that I’m sure you enjoyed. You pleaded guilty at the first hearing, meaning that the victim and witnesses have not had to come to court. For this, your sentence will be reduced by one third.
Now you’ve heard the facts of the case and what the magistrate has to say, what do you think is the appropriate sentence? Please choose one of the following four possibilities:
36 weeks’ custody, meaning the defendant will be imprisoned
24 weeks’ custody, meaning the defendant will be imprisoned
A community order with 120 hours of unpaid work, or
A community order with 80 hours of unpaid work
Now you’ve made your decision, let’s see what sentence will be handed down.
Presiding justice
The appropriate sentence for you were this case to go to trial would be a high-level community order. Given that you pleaded guilty, the sentence will be a community order of 120 hours of unpaid work. You will also pay Mrs Moseley compensation in the sum of £1,500. You will pay £400 immediately and the remainder in 11 monthly instalments of £100. You will also pay prosecution costs and the statutory surcharge. You must see the Probation Service before you leave the court.
Legal adviser
Court rise.
Now that you’ve heard from the magistrates, how does this compare with the sentence you picked? If it’s different, what aggravating or mitigating factors could you have missed or weighed differently from the court that might have helped inform your decision? We hope this exercise has helped you understand more about sentencing.
You are about to see a shortened version of a hearing in the Crown Court relating to robbery.
At the end of the video, you will be asked what sentence you think would be appropriate for the defendant. Throughout the video, look out for aggravating factors and mitigating factors that will influence the sentence. Aggravating factors are circumstances that make the crime more serious. Mitigating factors are circumstances that make the offence less serious or matters relating to the offender that may lead the court to reduce the sentence.
Court clerk
Please stand. Are you Mr Adam Khan?
Defendant
I am.
Court clerk
You are charged that on the 17th of October last year you robbed Kelly Jones of a handbag containing personal items including her debit card in contravention of section 8 of the Theft Act 1968. How do you plead?
Defendant
Guilty.
Court clerk
Please take a seat.
Judge
Good morning. According to my notes, I have a Mr Bragg here representing the prosecution.
Prosecution barrister
Yes, Your Honour.
Judge
And a Mrs Ryder, here on behalf of the defendant, is that correct?
Defence barrister
That’s correct, Your Honour.
Judge
Thank you. Let’s get straight to it, shall we? Mr Bragg will you outline the case for me?
Prosecutor
Certainly, Your Honour. Miss Jones was walking home from her shift at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at around 6.30pm on the 17th of October last year, a journey she makes most days. Miss Jones had her headphones in while walking down Malins Road, when two men on a moped pulled up beside her and attempted to grab her handbag. When she resisted, the defendant, Mr Khan, got off the moped, took out a large knife and threatened to, and I’m using Mr Khan’s words here, ‘stab up’ Miss Jones if she didn’t hand over the bag. Miss Jones understandably tried to run from her attackers but Mr Khan held onto her bag and then proceeded to punch her so hard on the shoulder that she lost her balance and fell to the pavement, injuring her leg. Mr Khan then jumped back on the moped with Miss Jones’s handbag and the two men sped off down Metchley Park.
According to Miss Jones’s bank statements, at around 6.50pm, just 20 minutes after the incident occurred, Mr Khan was using Miss Jones’s contactless card to buy chocolate and beer at a local express supermarket. CCTV evidence confirms this.
Judge
And what of Miss Jones’s injuries?
Prosecution barrister
Well, Your Honour, Miss Jones made a Victim Personal Statement in which she said that the physical injuries she suffered required hospital treatment and she had to take several weeks off work. Even more significantly she has also suffered emotional and mental distress. She now suffers from anxiety and has lost her self-confidence due to this ordeal. She is too scared to go out alone in public, and this has had a serious impact on her day-to-day life and means that her father must now drive her to and from work.
Judge
And what has become of the driver of the moped?
Prosecution barrister
The driver has not been identified.
Defence barrister
That’s correct, Your Honour.
Judge
Thank you. Would you like to make any comment on the sentence, Mr Bragg?
Prosecution barrister
You Honour, we say this case falls into the highest culpability within the sentencing guidelines.
Mr Khan threatened Miss Jones with a knife, he punched her and caused her to sustain serious physical and psychological harm, which also puts it into the highest category of harm as well. The court will clearly be considering a custodial sentence for an offence of this seriousness, which has been compounded by the fact that this will be Mr Khan’s fourth conviction and third using a weapon. Mr Khan seems to have a habit of carrying a weapon in order to steal from people.
Defence barrister
Your Honour, I have to interject on this point. Mr Khan’s last conviction was theft and possession of a bladed article. There is a clear distinction to this case as, in that case, he did not use the knife to threaten, he was just caught with it at the time.
Judge
I see, and when was the last time Mr Khan was before the courts?
Defence barrister
That was over two years ago.
Judge
And the sentence?
Defence barrister
He was given a five-month custodial sentence.
Judge
I see, thank you. Mr Bragg?
Prosecution barrister
Your Honour, we say this case is aggravated not only by his previous convictions but also by the fact that Mr Khan also played a leading role in a group offence.
Judge
Thank you, Mr Bragg. Mrs Ryder, I turn to you.
Defence barrister
Your Honour. At 23, my client is a young man who is immature but who has the capacity to change as he matures. It was never his intention to cause Miss Jones any harm and he lashed out in anger only when she refused to hand over the bag. This was not a planned attack, and it was the moped driver who suggested to Mr Khan they should try to swipe the bag as they drove past. Mr Khan had no intention of using the knife but accepts the fact that his threatening the victim with it must have been very frightening for her.
Judge
We spoke briefly about this being Mr Khan’s fourth offence. Can you elaborate on this?
Defence barrister
Your Honour, this is indeed Mr Khan’s fourth offence. However, his first was at 15 and his last was over two years ago. Mr Khan has had a troubled childhood, his parents split during his teenage formative years and this has had a knock-on effect on his schooling and his ability to hold down a job. But he is motivated to change and has accepted that he must take responsibility for his actions, particularly now that his girlfriend is pregnant. He is devastated that he will miss the birth. He has a job on his wing in the prison. Mr Khan also pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity and has shown remorse for his actions.
Judge
Thank you, both. If there’s nothing else.
Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence? When you’re ready, click ‘continue’ to hear what the judge thinks.
Judge
Mr Khan, stand up please.
This was an unpleasant attack on a young woman who you thought was an easy target, and you did not expect her to resist. When she did resist, you threatened her with a knife. You knocked her to the ground and went shopping with her card.
Whether or not the attack was pre-planned by you has no bearing on my sentence. Miss Jones’s injuries were serious and she is still living with the consequences. I hope you have had time to reflect on the devastating impact you’ve had on this young woman’s life.
The sentence I must pass will inevitably be one of imprisonment. Looking at the sentencing guideline for this offence, this case falls into high harm and high culpability, meaning the starting point is a sentence of 8 years in prison, with a range from 7 to 12 years, before any reduction for a guilty plea, which in your case would be one third.
Now you’ve heard the facts of the case and what the judge has to say, what do you think is the appropriate sentence? The judge has made clear that the defendant will receive a custodial sentence, meaning he will be imprisoned. Please choose one of the four following possibilities:
a) 4 years’ custody
b) 6 years’ custody
c) 8 years’ custody, or
d) 9 years’ custody
Now you’ve made your decision, let’s see what sentence will be handed down.
Judge
In deciding whether to move up or down from this starting point, I must balance the aggravating and mitigating factors. Your previous convictions, particularly those for carrying weapons, and the fact that you committed this offence with someone else makes this more serious. In your favour, I do take into account that you are still relatively young and have shown willingness to face up to your offending behaviour. But, in my judgment, the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.
If this case had gone to trial, the sentence for a serious robbery such as this would see you receiving 9 years’ imprisonment. However, to your credit, you pleaded guilty at your first opportunity, meaning you spared Miss Jones from coming to trial and reliving her experiences. With that in mind, you are entitled to a reduction of one-third off your sentence. The sentence therefore is 6 years’ imprisonment. You will also be required to pay the statutory surcharge.
Mr Khan, do you understand?
Defendant
Yes.
Judge
Mr Bragg, Mrs Ryder, I’m grateful to you both for the way you have conducted this case.
Court clerk
Court rise.
Now that you’ve heard from the judge, how does this compare with the sentence you picked? If it’s different, what aggravating or mitigating factors could you have missed or weighed differently from the court that might have helped inform your decision? We hope this exercise has helped you understand more about sentencing.
You are about to see a shortened version of a hearing in the youth court relating to possession of a bladed article.
At the end of the video, you will be asked what sentence you think would be appropriate for the defendant. Throughout the video, look out for aggravating factors and mitigating factors that will influence the sentence. Aggravating factors are circumstances that make the crime more serious. Mitigating factors are circumstances that make the offence less serious or matters relating to the offender that may lead the court to reduce the sentence.
Presiding justice
Good morning. Stephen, I see you’re here today with your mother and the liaison officer, thank you both for attending. On the 28th of January this year you were found guilty at trial. A pre-sentence report has been provided to us by the Youth Offending Team. Now, let me explain what we are going to do today. First of all, I’m going to ask Miss Eunice, who represents the prosecution, to outline the case and the reasons for you being here today. Then I will come to Mr Mustafa who, as you will know, represents you, and the three of us will then discuss what the appropriate punishment should be. Do you understand?
Defendant
Yes.
Presiding justice
All right. This is not a re-trial of the evidence, but it helps give us a picture of what
happened. I trust you have had time to talk with the Youth Offending Team?
Defendant
No, I don’t know what you mean.
Presiding justice
I’m sorry, Stephen. What I meant to say was, have you spoken with Mr Huskins who is sitting behind you?
Defendant
Oh, yes, I have.
Presiding justice
Very good. Miss Eunice, could you please outline the case?
Prosecutor
On the 2nd of December last year, Stephen was leaving his college with a group of friends when a police car drove past. Upon seeing the police car, Stephen made a dash down a nearby alleyway, seemingly to get away from the police. In responding to this suspicious behaviour, the police parked their car and chased him, to discover that a knife had dropped from his pocket and onto the pavement. The police managed to catch up with Stephen, and he was arrested. Stephen refused to answer questions in police interview and merely made a statement to say that the knife did not belong to him. However, as you previously stated, the case went to trial and he was found guilty.
Presiding justice
Thank you, that is clear. Do continue.
Prosecutor
Sir, Stephen is 17 years’ old. This is the second time he has been caught with a bladed article. In December, when he was caught by the police, he was halfway through a community order for the exact same offence. The court does not need to be reminded of the dangers of young men carrying knives.
Presiding justice
Can you elaborate more on the previous offence?
Prosecutor
That was in June last year and was in very similar circumstances. He was caught on a bus on his way to college with a knife. The pre-sentence report sets out how the Youth Offending Team were working on a number of interventions with him, including working with him on his thinking skills and helping him understand the dangers of carrying a knife. However, it appears that Stephen has, unfortunately, not learned his lesson. As is laid out very clearly in the sentencing guidelines, the law states that he must now be subject to a minimum term of a 4-month detention and training order.
Presiding justice
Thank you. Mr Mustafa, now that we’ve heard the outline of the case and what Miss Eunice has said, do you have a reply?
Defence lawyer
I do indeed, Sir. Stephen is in his second year of college. The first year for him was very stop-start. At that time, he was carrying a weapon purely for self-defence. He did not feel safe walking to and from college and said he needed it to protect himself. His college have already confirmed that he is settling into his education and is on his way to completing his Level 1 Diploma in Creative Media. If you were to impose a custodial sentence on him now, this would disrupt his learning and possibly have a detrimental effect on his future prospects.
As Miss Eunice has rightly pointed out, the sentencing guidelines reflect the law that, for a second offence of carrying a knife, a minimum sentence of 4 months must be imposed unless there are exceptional circumstances. We would invite the court to consider that Stephen’s circumstances are indeed exceptional. Stephen has learned from his actions and deeply regrets them. He has a supportive family, and his mother is here in court with him today. Stephen was beginning to make progress on the youth rehabilitation order. Sentencing young people to detention is never ideal and, in this case, it would disrupt his education, would not promote Stephen’s welfare and, we say, would not prevent him from reoffending as he would be associating with other offenders. For those reasons, we invite the court to impose another youth rehabilitation order as an alternative to custody. Thank you.
Presiding justice
Thank you, both. Stephen, can you stand up now please. We have heard what Mr Mustafa has had to say. Can you tell us how you are getting on at college?
Defendant
Yes, I am getting on a lot better now.
Presiding justice
We have all been able to read your pre-sentence report, and now we are going to talk about what we think the appropriate sentence is for you.
Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence? When you’re ready, click ‘continue’ to hear what the magistrates think.
Presiding justice
Stephen, knife crime is serious, and the courts must, in these cases, pass sentences that protect the public from people who carry knives, and send a clear message to deter others from doing the same. When sentencing young people, our focus is to prevent you from committing any further offences, whilst also having regard to your welfare. For this offence, Parliament has said that, if a young person commits a second offence or further offences of possession of a knife, the court must impose a 4-month detention and training order, unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances that relate to any of the offences or to the offender, that’s you, and justify not imposing that sentence.
Now you’ve heard the facts of the case and what the magistrate has to say, what do you think is the appropriate sentence? Your options are a youth rehabilitation order, which is a sentence served in the community, or a detention and training order, half of which would be served in a young offender institution followed by the other half attending training sessions. Please choose one of the four following possibilities:
a) A youth rehabilitation order for 12 months
b) A youth rehabilitation order for 24 months
c) 4-month detention and training order, or
d) A youth rehabilitation order for 12 months
Now you’ve made your decision, let’s see what sentence will be handed down.
Presiding justice
Stephen, you were already bound by an order designed to deter you from
reoffending, but here you are again. Your first offence could have been seen as poor judgement, but you are now 17 and you know the dangers of carrying a knife. There is a real risk of harm to other people or to yourself. Not only could you end up using it, but somebody else could, too. There is nothing about you and your circumstances or anything about this offence that makes us conclude that it would be unjust to impose the required sentence set by Parliament. And with that being said, you will receive a 4-month detention and training order.
This means that you will be in detention for 2 months and then you will be released to complete 2 months of training courses. The knife will be destroyed, and you will have to pay a contribution to the cost of the trial. We hope that we won’t see you in court again. Is all of this clear?
Defendant
Yes. I’m sorry.
Presiding justice
Thank you. That is all.
Now that you’ve heard from the magistrates, how does this compare with the sentence you picked? If it’s different, what aggravating or mitigating factors could you have missed or weighed differently from the court that might have helped inform your decision? We hope this exercise has helped you understand more about sentencing.
You are about to see a shortened version of a hearing in the magistrates’ court relating to assault on an emergency worker.
At the end of the video, you will be asked what sentence you think would be appropriate for the defendant. Throughout the video, look out for aggravating factors and mitigating factors that will influence the sentence. Aggravating factors are circumstances that make the crime more serious. Mitigating factors are circumstances that make the offence less serious or matters relating to the offender that may lead the court to reduce the sentence.
Legal adviser
Please stand. Are you Terry Bracey?
Defendant
I am.
Legal adviser
You have previously pleaded guilty to a charge that on the 9th of April last year you assaulted a paramedic by spitting on her as she was in the course of carrying out her duties. Please sit.
Presiding justice
Thank you. We have asked for a pre-sentence report to be prepared by the Probation Service and now that we have this, we can proceed to sentence today.
Mrs Quentin, could you please set out this case for us?
Prosecutor
Yes. Thank you. My name is Mrs Quentin, I’m here on behalf of the prosecution. You will see on the other side of the bench, Mr Avery who is here representing the defendant, Mr Bracey.
The facts of the case are this. On the evening of the 9th of April, Mr Bracey was drinking with a friend outside a pub on Croydon High Street. It appears an altercation broke out between an unrelated group of individuals for which an ambulance and police had to be called to attend to a gentleman who had suffered a head injury.
About ten or so minutes later the ambulance arrived at the scene, and Mrs Harding and her emergency services partner attended to the victim. Mr Bracey and his friend, for some reason, had decided to involve themselves by standing around the injured man, stopping Mrs Harding from carrying out her duties.
Mrs Harding is an experienced paramedic and used to dealing with drunk people. However, on this occasion, Mr Bracey was proving excessively difficult to deal with. He would not give her the space she needed to do her job. Mrs Harding told Mr Bracey that he was drunk and, ‘acting like an idiot’. Mr Bracey responded by lunging towards Mrs Harding, spitting on her and shouting, ‘I’m infected’.
Presiding justice
And where were the police at this point?
Prosecutor
They had arrived on the scene shortly before the ambulance got there, but they were dealing with the other group who had got into a fight.
They had arrested Mr Bracey shortly after the incident but they were not there to witness the assault.
Presiding justice
Thank you. Where exactly did Mr Bracey spit on Mrs Harding?
Prosecutor
I believe it was on her paramedic’s jacket.
Presiding justice
Thank you. Carry on Mrs Quentin.
Prosecutor
Thank you. As Mr Bracey aggressively lunged and spat on Mrs Harding, she slipped and fell on to her wrist, causing an injury. This meant she had to take four weeks off work. In her victim statement, Mrs Harding shared that she also feared becoming ill or her family becoming infecting.
Presiding justice
And what was she worried about being infected with?
Prosecutor
Well, we’re not really sure. In hindsight, Mr Bracey was probably saying it for effect. Mrs Harding is alive and well, but that still doesn’t make the offence any less serious or traumatic.
We say that this was not just a silly act of a drunken man on a Friday night. It was a pernicious, unprovoked act of aggression on an emergency services worker who was simply there to do her job.
Presiding justice
Would you like to make any comment about where you consider this offence would sit within sentencing guidelines?
Prosecutor
Within sentencing guidelines, we say this would be high harm and high culpability due to the physical harm and distress caused to the victim. Regarding Mr Bracey’s record, he has six previous convictions: three for common assault and two for driving with excess alcohol. It is also relevant that he was drunk at the time of this offence.
Presiding justice
Thank you, Mrs Quentin. Mr Avery, we turn to you.
Defence lawyer
Thank you. Mr Bracey is taking this case very seriously and is extremely apologetic about the way that he acted.
He is a successful, self-employed financial consultant, and on that Friday evening he was having a social drink with a friend after a busy week of work. He had little to eat and the alcohol was taking a stronger than usual effect on him. When the fight broke out and Mr Bracey saw that someone was injured, he went over to console them, to check that they were okay. When the paramedic got there, she was rude to him, called him an idiot and was heavy-handed in trying to get him to move, when he was simply trying to help someone.
The moment the incident occurred, Mr Bracey knew that he had done wrong. And when the police eventually arrested him, he accepted full responsibility.
Presiding justice
Anything you’d like to say on Mr Bracey’s previous convictions?
Defence lawyer
Yes, Mr Bracey has had previous convictions, but they are mainly alcohol related and his last offence was over two years ago. You will note that the pre-sentence report says that he is suitable for unpaid work. If the court feels that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided, we urge you to suspend any sentence of imprisonment.
Presiding justice
Thank you, Mr Avery. Anything else?
Defence lawyer
That’s it, thank you.
Presiding justice
We will just take a moment to confer.
Now you’ve heard the details of the case, what factors do you think will influence the sentence? When you’re ready, click ‘continue’ to hear what the magistrates think.
Presiding justice
Mr Bracey, will you please stand. We will now going to proceed to sentence you.
This case involves you assaulting a member of the emergency services by spitting on her and telling her you were infected. Mrs Harding was left feeling anxious about the risk to her health and her family’s health, as well as sustaining a wrist injury and needing time off work.
Despite Mr Avery arguing the contrary, your previous convictions and the fact you were drunk are aggravating factors in this case. We also need to take account of the fact that this offence was an attack on an emergency worker, which carries additional weight. Your guilty plea entitles you to a third off your sentence.
Now that you’ve heard the facts of the case and what the magistrate has to say, what do you think is the appropriate sentence? Please choose one of the four following possibilities:
a) A community order with 300 hours of unpaid work
b) 4 months’ custody, suspended for two years, meaning the defendant will not go to prison immediately but could do so if they commit another offence within the next two years, and they must comply with any requirements set by the court
c) 4 months’ custody, meaning the defendant will be immediately imprisoned, or
d) 6 months’ custody, meaning the defendant will be immediately imprisoned
Now you’ve made your decision, let’s see what sentence will be handed down.
Presiding justice
Mr Bracey, in anger you spat on a paramedic, telling her you were infectious. She was left anxious and fearful, and hurt her wrist while she was trying to get away from you. As a common assault, under the sentencing guidelines, this is culpability A with category 1 harm, with a starting point of a high community order and a range of up to 6 months’ custody. As we have said, your previous convictions and the fact that you were drunk are aggravating features. To start with, the appropriate sentence after trial would be 3 months in custody.
However, this assault was on a paramedic meaning that this is an aggravated form of common assault, which carries a higher sentence. Therefore, we must apply an uplift to the sentence. The appropriate sentence after trial is 6 months in custody. Taking away the time for your guilty plea means that, Mr Bracey, you are sentenced to 4 months in custody. This sentence will be immediate as, for assaulting a paramedic in the way you did, appropriate punishment can be achieved only by immediate imprisonment. You will also be required to pay the statutory surcharge. That is all.
Legal adviser
Court rise.
Now that you’ve heard from the magistrates, how does this compare with the sentence you picked? If it’s different, what aggravating or mitigating factors could you have missed or weighed differently from the court that might have helped inform your decision? We hope this exercise has helped you understand more about sentencing.