Safe Speed Forums

We have had a discussion in another thread about the relative seriousness of PTCOJ in, say, a murder case aginst a points sharing case.

Do you think that the PTOCJ is just as serious in both cases or is it related to the offence being avoided?

[page 5]With regard to the principle of proportionality, the Court of Appeal has established that sentences for perjury and perverting the course of justice must be proportionate to the wrong or harm of the index offence in which the “offence against justice” was perpetrated.
.....
“Proportionality” has also been interpreted to ensure that the offender should not receive a heavier sentence than those convicted of the index offence.
.....
[page 9]
Looking at these proposals [the Criminal Justice Bill 2002, since enacted as the Criminal Justice Act 2003] and their potential impact on sentencing in cases of perjury and perverting the course of justice, in those cases which do not involve offences of violence and therefore do not involve “harm or the risk of harm” a wider use of community penalties and diminution in the number of offenders sentenced to imprisonment can be expected.

Some common public interest factors against prosecution
A prosecution is less likely to be needed if:
the court is likely to impose a nominal penalty;
the defendant has already been made the subject of a sentence and any further conviction would be unlikely to result in the imposition of an additional sentence or order, unless the nature of the particular offence requires a prosecution or the defendant withdraws consent to have an offence taken into consideration;
the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding (these factors must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence);
the loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by a misjudgement;
there has been a long delay between the offence taking place and the date of the trial, unless:
the offence is serious;
the delay has been caused in part by the defendant;
the offence has only recently come to light; or
the complexity of the offence has meant that there has been a long investigation;
a prosecution is likely to have a bad effect on the victim's physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence;
the defendant is elderly or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from significant mental or physical ill health, unless the offence is serious or there is real possibility that it may be repeated. The Crown Prosecution Service, where necessary, applies Home Office guidelines about how to deal with mentally disordered offenders. Crown Prosecutors must balance the desirability of diverting a defendant who is suffering from significant mental or physical ill health with the need to safeguard the general public;
the defendant has put right the loss or harm that was caused (but defendants must not avoid prosecution or diversion solely because they pay compensation); or
details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security.

The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution will be needed in the public interest. A prosecution is likely to be needed if:
a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
a conviction is likely to result in a confiscation or any other order;
a weapon was used or violence was threatened during the commission of the offence;
the offence was committed against a person serving the public (for example, a police or prison officer, or a nurse);
the defendant was in a position of authority or trust;
the evidence shows that the defendant was a ringleader or an organiser of the offence;
there is evidence that the offence was premeditated;
there is evidence that the offence was carried out by a group;
the victim of the offence was vulnerable, has been put in considerable fear, or suffered personal attack, damage or disturbance;
the offence was committed in the presence of, or in close proximity to, a child;
the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin, disability, sex, religious beliefs, political views or sexual orientation, or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics;
there is a marked difference between the actual or mental ages of the defendant and the victim, or if there is any element of corruption;
the defendant's previous convictions or cautions are relevant to the present offence;
the defendant is alleged to have committed the offence while under an order of the court;
there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated , for example, by a history of recurring conduct;
the offence, although not serious in itself, is widespread in the area where it was committed; or
a prosecution would have a significant positive impact on maintaining community confidence.

the offence, although not serious in itself, is widespread in the area where it was committed;

the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding (these factors must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence);

the loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by a misjudgement

His sentence was to attend a rehab. course, no prison.

Addicts present an interesting sentencing problem.

Do you send them to jail knowing that they will re-offend within days of getting out and then go back to jail. Costing a lot of public money to keep them inside and all too often posing a risk to the public when on the outside.

Or do you try the rehabilitation route in the hope of putting an end to the problem. With (usually) a suspended sentence so that any failure to attend or engage fully with the rehab course means they go to jail without needing to commit any further offences.

Come off it Fisherman, you must get the same old faces in time and time again? The likes Doherty gets multiple chances, a sick old man, first offence gets hammered. Aint 'justice' sweet?

I am interested in your reference to "a sick old man". Would you not punish any sick old man whatever the offence? Or is just that you wouldn't punish anyone for taking points?

Is putting a sick old man in prison really the right punishment for a totally non-violent offence that is not going to be repeated? A fine or some sort of community service would have seemed more appropriate.

There's plenty of precedent for giving sick old men a much lesser sentence for the same offence than fit young ones.

Or do you try the rehabilitation route in the hope of putting an end to the problem. With (usually) a suspended sentence so that any failure to attend or engage fully with the rehab course means they go to jail without needing to commit any further offences.

With regard to the principle of proportionality, the Court of Appeal has established that sentences for perjury and perverting the course of justice must be proportionate to the wrong or harm of the index offence in which the “offence against justice” was perpetrated.
.....
“Proportionality” has also been interpreted to ensure that the offender should not receive a heavier sentence than those convicted of the index offence.
.....
[page 9]
Looking at these proposals [the Criminal Justice Bill 2002, since enacted as the Criminal Justice Act 2003] and their potential impact on sentencing in cases of perjury and perverting the course of justice, in those cases which do not involve offences of violence and therefore do not involve “harm or the risk of harm” a wider use of community penalties and diminution in the number of offenders sentenced to imprisonment can be expected.

Old, ill people get sent down all the time. Many people die in custody every year.