header-logo header-logo

Sentencing Council issues mental health guidelines for judges

10 April 2019
Issue: 7836 / Categories: Legal News , Mental health , Criminal
printer mail-detail

For the first time, judges and magistrates are to be given guidelines to help them assess responsibility when sentencing offenders with mental health conditions.

Draft guidance published this week by the Sentencing Council aims to provide a process to follow when sentencing people with mental health conditions or conditions such as learning disabilities, autism, brain injury, substance misuse disorders and dementia.

Lucy Schonegevel, head of health influencing at Rethink Mental Illness, said: ‘This is a big step towards the justice system having a better understanding of mental illness, as it’s the first time there will be specific sentencing guidelines in this area.’

There is a lack of reliable data on mental illness in prisons. According to a 2017 National Audit Office report, however, one survey of recent arrivals at prison found nearly a quarter had prior contact with mental health services; 17% of the prison population is thought to have a learning disability compared to 2% of the population; the proportion of prisoners with autism is believed to be double that within the general population; and nearly a quarter of prisoners have been hospitalised for a head injury.

The guidance takes the form of principles to be applied by judges alongside offence-specific guidelines. The principles include that the courts: focus on individual circumstances; balance the rights and needs of offenders with the protection of the public and rights and needs of victims and their families to feel safe; and consider all the facts in each case, including what is practically available.

Sentencing Council member Judge Rosa Dean said the council believed ‘offenders who have a mental health condition or disorder, neurological impairment or developmental disorder should be confident that the court has the information it needs to take a consistent approach’.

The Sentencing Council consultation, ‘Overarching Principles: Sentencing Offenders with Mental Health Conditions or Disorders’, ends on 9 July 2019 .

Issue: 7836 / Categories: Legal News , Mental health , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll