Sentencing Sex Offenders—English Law

Abstract

Cambridge University, England Until relatively recent years, English sentenc ing legislation did not attempt to structure the exercise of discretion by sentencing judges. Criminal statutes fixed maximum sentences, but never minimum terms; judges were free to de cide whether to impose a term of imprisonment, within the statutory maximum, or to impose some other form of sentence, such as a probation order, a community service order or a hospital order. Murder, punishable with a mandatory life sentence (from which the offender could be released on licence) was the only exception. Effective direction of sentencing policy and practice was the responsibility of the Court of Appeal, acting through the process of appellate review. Judgments of the Court of Appeal on large numbers of cases every year provided (and continue to provide) a pool of guidance on the general prin ciples of sentencing, and on the lengths of sentence appropriate in particular cases. Decisions of the Court of Appeal indicated that as a general principle, offenders (including those convicted of sexual offences) were to be sentenced on the basis of what they had done, rather than what they might do in the future. The idea that an offender should be sentenced to term of imprisonment which was longer than he deserved for his actual offences, in order to protect the public from expected future offences, was generally rejected. A long sentence, passed for an offence such as indecent assault, to prevent the offender from committing further offences, would be reduced to a term which was considered proportionate to the offence, even though there was evidence which indicated that the offender would continue to commit similar offences.