Criminal lawBy Anthony Edwards, TV Edwards, London

Sentencing advisory panelThe sentencing advisory panel was established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to offer opinions for consideration by the Court of Appeal before that court handed down guideline judgments.

The work of the panel to date suggests that this could be of considerable overall benefit to the criminal justice system.

The reports give to the Court of Appeal a much wider experience than individual court cases can make possible.

They also present important research evidence as to the actual use of different penalties, particularly in the magistrates' court.The court itself asked for guidance from the panel in relation to possession of opium with intent to supply and the court accepted that guidance with some variations in R v Mashaollahi (2000) The Times, 4 August.

The government invited the panel to put together guidelines in relation to environmental crime and these will be an essential point of reference for any solicitor preparing mitigation in such a case.

Using existing case law they emphasise in particular the need to place before the court all relevant financial information.

If this is not done a court may draw the wrong inferences as to the means of an individual defendant or company.

The guide also helpfully identifies all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.The panel has also published two reports of its own in an attempt to ensure greater consistency throughout the country.

The most important for solicitors will be the advice in relation to offensive weapons and sharp-bladed instruments.

The advice makes clear that custody is seldom the appropriate outcome in these cases (notwithstanding the recent guidelines of the Magistrates Association).

It identifies the primary issues for concern as the defendant's intention, the circumstances in which the offence was committed and the nature of a weapon.In relation to racially aggravated crime the panel suggests that a court concentrate first on the basic offence and consider the appropriate penalty.

Racial aggravation should then be considered separately thereafter.

If the court was considering dealing with the matter other than by custody the effect of the racial aggravation may be to move the case up through thresholds.

If the effect of racial aggravation is not to increase the appropriate threshold; the panel recommends that the penalty which would otherwise have been given be increased by between 40% and 70%.

With the exception only of the reference to precise percentage increase the Court of Appeal has substantially accepted this advice in R v Kelly and Donelly (2001) Crim LR 411.

The most recent report on sentence for handling stolen goods may prove the most controversial.

It identifies four levels of suggested seriousness, identifying aggravating factors and dividing cases into groups calling for discharge or fine, community penalty, shorter custodial sentences, and finally custody appropriate to more serious offences.

The panel has also issued a consultation paper on burglary.

All relevant documents can be found at: www.sentencing-advisory-panel.gov.uk