Judges to look at softer sentences for ‘deprived’ criminals

New guidelines branded ‘extremely patronising’ amid fears they will create discrimination against middle classes

Judges have been told to consider more lenient sentences for offenders from “deprived” or “difficult” backgrounds.
The Sentencing Council, the official body responsible for setting guidelines for judges and magistrates, has for the first time spelt out “mitigating” factors relating to disadvantage that courts should consider before passing sentence.
The guidelines on “difficult and/or deprived background or personal circumstance” state that these factors include poverty, low educational attainment, experience of discrimination and insecure housing.
The council went ahead with the changes, which took effect on Monday, despite warnings from Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, who said the guidance was “patronising” and “inaccurate”, and risked making poor schooling and poverty excuses for offenders to commit crimes.
During the consultation, concerns were also raised that the new guidelines could lead to better-off, middle class offenders from secure homes being “unfairly disadvantaged” by being handed tougher penalties for the same offence. 
It was also pointed out that many people from deprived backgrounds do not offend.
The Blue Collar Conservatives, a group founded by Esther McVey, the minister for common sense, told the council: “We believe this is extremely patronising, not least to law-abiding working class communities.
“Often it is actually those who come from the poorest communities who will be the victims of the crimes in these cases. Low educational attainment and poverty are not excuses to commit crimes.”
The Sentencing Council admitted that judges and magistrates privately consulted over the plans had been “predominantly negative or neutral”, with many saying they already took such factors into account.
However, it decided to proceed with the proposal because it argued that spelling out such mitigating factors would ensure they were applied in a “consistent and appropriate” way and improve “transparency and fairness”.
As a result, judges and magistrates have been told they should consider 12 factors of “disadvantage” in determining an offender’s responsibility for a crime, how the factors bear on criminals’ behaviour and the effect of any sentence that might be imposed on them.
The factors include negative experiences of authority, early experience of offending by family members, negative influences from peers and difficulties relating to the misuse of drugs and alcohol. 
This excludes being voluntarily drunk at the time of an offence, which is an “aggravating factor” in sentencing.
In his response to the consultation, seen by The Telegraph, Mr Chalk said: “The Government is clear that many of the examples of difficulty or deprivation that have been set out in the consultation, such as low educational attainment and poverty, ought not to be relied upon as excuses to commit crimes.
“Presupposing that relatively low income for example (or indeed other deprivation) indicates a propensity to commit crime risks appearing patronising at best, or inaccurate at worst.
“Moreover, many in society, including no doubt judges and MPs, will have encountered young people from modest educational or financial backgrounds who have shown scrupulous integrity and a commitment to leading a law-abiding life.”
One respondent warned of harsher sentences for middle class offenders, saying: “The other danger is that defendants who exhibit the flip sides could be unfairly disadvantaged – those who are not poor, those who live in secure housing, those who have the security of family life.”
Another described it as over-prescriptive. “This is an incomplete and potentially misleading attempt to identify the ‘nth’ degree of mitigation. The court is capable of identifying endless additional factors in relation to the particular individual and the particular offence – let the court do that,” they said.
Asked why the Sentencing Council went ahead with the changes, a spokesman said the guidance was phrased to strike a balance by drawing courts’ attention to “potentially relevant considerations” without being over-prescriptive. 
For example, it talked of factors that “may” be relevant or “may” have a bearing on offending, he said.
It comes as the Ministry of Justice faces a prisons overcrowding crisis, with fears that jails could run out of space within weeks. 
Courts have already been told by one of Britain’s most senior judges that they must consider overcrowding as a factor in whether to spare an offender from jail.
An MoJ spokesman said: “Sentencing decisions are made by independent judges who already take into account the circumstances of each case in line with guidelines set out by the Sentencing Council.”