R v Seed; R v Stark [2007] All ER (D) 161 (Feb)
The court gave further guidance on the imposition of custodial sentences at a time of prison overcrowding:
(i) It does not follow from the fact that the custody threshold—Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), s 152(2)—has been passed that a custodial sentence has to be imposed, since the effect of a guilty plea or of personal mitigation might make it appropriate to impose a non-custodial sentence.
(ii) When considering the length of the sentence (under s 153(2)), it should be borne in mind that the prison regime is likely to be more arduous as a result of overcrowding.
(iii) Unless imprisonment is necessary for the protection of the public, courts should always give consideration to the question of whether the aims of rehabilitation, and thus the reduction of crime, could be better achieved by a fine or community sentence rather than by imprisonment, and whether punishment could adequately be achieved by such a sentence.
(iv) While there might previously have been reluctance to impose fines because fines were often not enforced, enforcement of fines is now rigorous and effective. Where an offender has the means, a heavy fine can often be an adequate and appropriate punishment. If so, CJA 2003 requires a fine to be imposed rather than a community sentence.
(v) Particular care should be exercised before imposing a custodial sentence on a first-time offender. Association with seasoned criminals might make re-offending more likely rather than deter it, especially if the offender is young. A clean record can be important personal mitigation and might make a custodial sentence inappropriate despite the fact that the custodial threshold is crossed.
