Sentencing guidelinesThe Magistrates' Association has introduced the third edition of its sentencing guidelines.

These are an essential document for solicitors working in the magistrates' courts.

For all the most common offences they lay down a clear framework for the court to consider the appropriate sentence.

There are three significant changes to the second edition.-- First, the concept of the entry point is replaced by a guideline sentence.

The difference may seem semantic but it was considered that the entry point approach placed too great a pressure on magistrates to apply tariff sentencing.

Advocates will wish to stress the greater freedom which should result, allowing a court to take account of a lack aggravating features or the existence of mitigating factors so that the guideline need not be followed on the particular facts.

Personal mitigating circumstances remain capable of moving cases down through a threshold.-- The second change is in relation to the guideline sentence for offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

In the second edition the entry point was a community penalty.

In the third the guideline is a custodial sentence.

Advocates will need clearly to understand the reason for this and will, in appropriate cases, wish to bring this to the attention of the Bench.

The guideline has been increased because of the effect of the charging standards which are now applied by the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

The offence of occasioning actual bodily harm is now only used in bad cases.

Many charges w hich could have been preferred in this way are now actually charged as a common assault.

Thus if solicitors are faced with an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm at the lower end of the scale they may wish to emphasise that fact in particular.-- The third major change is in relation to fine levels.

The introduction to the guide makes clear that it is equality of punishment which is sought, not equality of financial penalty.

Three levels of income are therefore examined although many magistrates will be setting their own levels.

Fines for those in the low income group will be significantly lower than for middle range earners and lower still than those in high income groups.Solicitors will wish to check levels in their local courts so that in borderline cases appropriate attention can be paid to an accurate income figure.

Solicitors will continue to need to emphasise to their magistrates that the entire guide is based on the premise of a not guilty plea and all guideline sentences should be discounted for an early indication of guilt.Domestic burglaryThe guideline judgment of the Court of Appeal in Regina v Brewster and others 1997 Crim LR 690 is of particular significance.

The Lord Chief Justice has emphasised that the range of offending covered by domestic burglary is so infinitely varied that sentencing levels will also vary enormously.

The judgment is particularly important for those defendants who wish to indicate an early guilty plea as in many cases it would now seem appropriate for them to be sentenced within the magistrates' court jurisdiction.

The court emphasises that the position of young offenders must be treated with particular care as it will almost always be appropriate to impose a shorter sentence than would be imposed on an adult.

The court emphasised that an offender's record is of particular significance in the case of domestic burglaries.

Those offenders whose careers lacked any element of persistence or deliberation were entitled to more lenient treatment.

While the court indicated that self induced addiction to drugs could not be relied on as mitigation and that 'courts will not be easily persuaded that an addicted offender is genuinely determined and able to conquer his addiction'.

The use of that phrase must suggest that with appropriate reports from the probation service, a court may be persuaded that progress can be made.

The judgment is essential reading for all advocates and emphasises a series of aggravating and mitigation factors.Summarising the position it confirms as follows:-- Burglary of a dwelling house whether occupied or unoccupied is not necessarily and in all cases an offence of such seriousness that a non-custodial sentence could not be justified.-- The decision whether a custodial sentence is required would be heavily dependent on aggravating and mitigating factors and to a lesser extent the personal circumstances of the offender.