AG opens ‘unduly lenient sentences’ appeals work to more lawyers

Topics: Advocacy,Government & politics,Judicial

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (2)
  • Save

Related images

  • Jeremy Wright QC

More prosecutors will be able to conduct appeals into unduly lenient sentences (ULS), the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) announced today.

At present, only Treasury counsel can conduct appeals on behalf of the government.

Advertisement

Grade 4 prosecution advocates will be eligible to participate in a six-month pilot period to undertake such casework, today's announcement states.

Attorney general Jeremy Wright QC MP (pictured) said: ‘It is vital that the public are able to legally challenge custodial sentences and to make sure offences are being properly punished.

‘This trial extension is a great opportunity for experienced lawyers to develop their skills further whilst preserving the continued effective operation of the [ULS] scheme.

‘With the number of referrals increasing, it is right that we look at ways to widen the approach.’

The number of sentences considered by the department has increased from 342 in 2010 to 674 in 2014. The number of referrals by the department to the Court of Appeal has risen from 90 in 2010 to 122 in 2014.

Following today's announcement, the Judicial Office reissued the president of the Queen's Bench's response to annual ULS statistics released in June 2015. Sir Brian Leveson said at the time: ‘Sentencing is a complex process where the judge must take into account a number of factors in reaching a balanced decision.’

Wright told the Gazette that he did 'not take the view' that the judiciary 'in widespread fashion are sentencing wrongly’.

He said: ‘The vast majority of sentencing in this country is not touched by the Court of Appeal at all. Judges, in my experience, get it right and spend a great deal of time and effort to do so.

‘Judges do not get it right every single time and there needs to be a mechanism to correct the situation if they have not. But this is a tiny minority of cases and remains a tiny minority.'

Explaining the reasons behind the rise in the number of cases being considered, Wright said the number of offences that could be referred to the department had increased as well as awareness of the scheme. 

The attorney general may be contacted directly by MPs, peers, pressure groups or members of the public.

Wright said today’s announcement was ‘in no way an indication of loss of confidence in the Treasury counsel’, who he said were 'exceptional quality advocates and do a great job'.

A referral to the Court of Appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of the sentence. Wright said this could mean ‘several hours of work in a compressed timetable’.

Treasury counsel will continue to play the main role in ULS casework.

Wright said: ‘This is not about taking work away from them but managing an increase in workload. You cannot expect a fixed number of Treasury counsel to absorb an increasing number of cases forever.'

Should the pilot be successful, Wright said he will ‘consider whether to extend it to a larger number of advocates’ or make the pilot arrangement a ‘permanent feature of the system’.

'We need to make sure that those who are doing advocacy on my behalf are doing it well. We are going to do this gradually and make sure standards are being maintained.'

Readers' comments (2)

  • Right. So whereas 1 in 3.8 referrals would end up at the CA, now only 1 in 5.5 do. There is no mention of how many of these have resulted in an increase in the original sentence.

    I have seen no evidence of any benefit derived by members of the public being able to instigate reviews as of right. When vastly more than 80% of those referrals end in nothing but the wasted time of some harried prosecutor, why should we as a country be wasting our time on this nonsense, merely because somebody who may never have heard of sentencing guidelines decides that any given defendant must have got off lightly?

    Can we not trust the AG to decide which cases to appeal? And if not, why not?

    Also, why is it the case that a member of the public, with no connection or involvement in a case can trigger a referral for what they arbitrarily consider an unduly lenient sentence, but not what they might consider an manifestly excessive sentence? If the sauce is good for the goose, surely it's good for the gander.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • hahahahahahahahaha

    Is it just me or has this piece now been re-written and all the hard hitting, but oh so true previously posted comments, all been 'White-Washed-Out'?

    LOL sooo funny

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (2)
  • Save

Manchester support legal aid placard

'Borderline' civil cases no longer eligible for legal aid

25 June 2016By

Legal Aid Agency announces it has changed its approach to assessing merits.

High Court

Party penalised in case 'crying out' for sensible negotiation

25 June 2016By

Judge says defendant failed to make full disclosure or entertain settlement.

EU flags

Lawyers fear for UK's future in ECHR after Brexit vote

24 June 2016By

The next prime minister could seek to leave the convention as part of move to ‘take back control’.

Advertisement

Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition