Suspension of a Custodial Sentence, Appropriate Punishment and Caring Responsibilities: R v Cromwell [2025] EWCA Crim 1315

This article examines the effects of custodial versus non-custodial sentences on recidivism. An eight-year follow-up study was conducted to track and compare rates of recidivism between former prisoners and offenders who had served a suspended prison sentence. Drawing upon a representative sample of 483 offenders sentenced in 1998 by the Criminal Courts of Barcelona, two subpopulations of offenders were selected. The first group consisted of offenders who were sentenced to prison ( n = 179) and the comparison group was composed of those who were given a suspended prison sentence ( n = 304). After controlling for other risk factors predictive of recidivism, logistic regression techniques were used to examine whether the variable ‘type of sanction’ (prison or suspended prison sentence) predicts reconviction rates. The analysis revealed that the offenders given suspended sentences had a lower risk of reconviction than those given custodial sentences. The findings provide evidence that alternatives to custody are more effective than imprisonment in reducing recidivism. Finally, the article discusses how these findings relate to labelling and specific deterrence theories that make contradictory claims regarding the effects of imprisonment on recidivism.

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to construct a single sentence severity scale incorporating the full range of custodial and non-custodial sentences meted out by the courts. Such a scale would allow us to measure and rank the severity of sentences, relative to other sentences.MethodsWe use disaggregated individual level sentencing data to model the association between offenses and their associated sentences using the Goodman Row Column (RC) Association Model. We then extend this model to control for three legal factors; conviction history, offense plea, and number of offenses, to produce a series of standardised scores. We use linear interpolation and extrapolation to convert the scores to equivalent days in custody.ResultsThe scores from the model enable the sentences to be ranked in order of severity; longer custodial sentences dominate at the severe end whilst non-custodial sentences congregate towards the lower end. In the middle of the scale, non-custodial and shorter custodial sentences interweave. We then demonstrate one use of the scale by applying it to Crown Court data, illustrating change in sentencing severity over time.ConclusionsThe Goodman RC Association Model provides a suitable methodology for scoring sentence severity on a single scale. The study found that by extending the model, we were also able to control for three legal factors. The sentence severity scale, as a research tool is specific to England and Wales but the method is universal and can be applied in any jurisdiction where the relevant data is available.

For reasons of methodological convenience statistical models analysing judicial decisions tend to focus on the duration of custodial sentences. These types of sentences are however quite rare (7% of the total in England and Wales), which generates a serious problem of selection bias. Typical adjustments employed in the literature, such as Tobit models, are based on questionable assumptions and are incapable to discriminate between different types of non-custodial sentences (such as discharges, fines, community orders, or suspended sentences). Here we implement an original approach to model custodial and non-custodial sentence outcomes simultaneously avoiding problems of selection bias while making the most of the information recorded for each of them. This is achieved by employing Pina-Sanchez et al. (Br J Criminol 59:979–1001, 2019) scale of sentence severity as the outcome variable of a Bayesian regression model. A sample of 7242 theft offences sentenced in the Crown Court is used to further illustrate: (a) the pervasiveness of selection bias in studies restricted to custodial sentences, which leads us to question the external validity of previous studies in the literature limited to custodial sentence length; and (b) the inadequacy of Tobit models and similar methods used in the literature to adjust for such bias.

Background People in prison have poorer health outcomes than the general population, added by the long-term impact of incarceration on mortality. Young people in custody face extra challenges associated with the stage of development. There is a lack of a tailored approach and policy to young people when transitioning back to the community. This paper draws from a PhD research that looked at the challenges to access healthcare during the transition back to the community. The specific question is: What are young people's healthcare needs when released from custodial sentences? Methods An ethnographic study conducted in Scotland in partnership with a community-based organisation. The participants were eight young people and ten practitioners that work in health and social care. Participatory observation and in-depth interviews were used to collect data during July 2019 and March 2020. Data analysis was conducted with Reflexive thematic analysis. NVivo supported data management. Results The identified needs were individualised issues, structural factors, mental health, substance use and geographical disposition of services. There is a need for mental support and continuity of care associated with substance use. The demand for local services is vital for healthcare provision. Healthcare needs go beyond the necessity of services and health issues. They are associated with stigma in the interaction with practitioners. Institutional practices and practitioners' attitudes reinforce non-explicit forms of discrimination and health inequalities. Conclusions Practitioners and policymakers need to focus on the person-centred approach. They need to listen to young people. Data showed a need for specific services, like mental health and drug use. Moreover, practitioners need to avoid stigmatisation and discrimination by a caring practice. Public health and social care policies need to address stigma and access to services for young people after a custodial sentence. Key messages It is necessary to avoid stigmatisation and improve access to services for young people transitioning back to the community after a custodial sentence. Public Health and social care policies need to address this marginalised group by offering person-centred approaches, continuity of care and support during re-entry.

Individuals with mental illness are overrepresented in custodial settings. We examine the overlap between incarceration and diagnosed mental illness in a population‐based cohort born in Queensland in 1990. Data were extracted when the cohort was 23 or 24 years old. The population included 44,952 individuals (6.3 per cent Indigenous Australians, 45.8 per cent male), of which 1.5 per cent (n = 690) had at least one custodial sentence, and 6.1 per cent (n = 2,723) had at least one inpatient mental health diagnosis. Most individuals (91.5 per cent) with a mental health diagnosis did not have a custodial sentence. However, a substantial proportion of individuals (33.6 per cent) with a custodial sentence also had an inpatient mental health diagnosis. When examined by gender and Indigenous status, clear patterns emerged. Indigenous Australians were overrepresented in both the mental health and prison systems. Females with a custodial sentence were more likely than males to have a mental health diagnosis. Our analysis highlights the vulnerability of individuals with mental illness within the prison system.

Postponement of the custodial sentence execution is one of few derogations from the rule of immediate sentence execution, defined in art. 9 § 1 of the Penal Enforcement Code. Its application results in a situation when some of the convicted remain outside the penitentiary system in the period defined by the court in the postponement order. Because of that fact, this institution at least periodically influences the size of the prison population. This article analyses the application of postponement of the custodial sentence execution based on statistical data and its impact on shaping the domestic prison population. The research material comprised statistical data, included in MS-S10 reports on executing orders according to material jurisdiction for the period 2012-2018 (concerning district and regional courts), made available by the Managing Statistical Information Division of the Strategy and European Funds Department within the Ministry of Justice. The data were presented in charts made by the author. The dissertation is opened with the analysis of the data, which concern passing the custodial sentence. It also includes modal forms such as substitutive custodial sentences instead of unpaid fines and unserved custodial sentences, as well as orders to serve suspended custodial sentences and orders to cancel parole. All the above prepare the ground for the central dissertation issues, i.e., the policy that applies the postponement of the custodial sentence execution by district and regional courts and the significance of the postponement mentioned above among other reasons for not putting the convicted in penitentiaries. Having done the preliminary research of available statistical data, the author concludes that, compared to other reasons for not putting the convicted in prisons, the role of the postponement of the custodial sentence execution in shaping the prison population is decreasing. This phenomenon should be perceived as an unfavourable one in principle. The author explains the view in the final remarks.

This chapter looks at the provision on custodial sentences under the Sentencing Act 2020. The court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence. The Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences sets out four questions for consideration. Has the custody threshold been passed? Is it unavoidable that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed? What is the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence? Can the sentence be suspended? The custodial sentence must be for the shortest term (not exceeding the permitted maximum) that in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it. The chapter then looks at the minima and maxima sentences.

This paper examines the sentencing of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth under the Young Offenders Act, using youth court data from five major cities in Canada. Three separate sentencing decisions are examined using logistic and multiple regression analyses: (1) the imposition of a custodial sentence versus a non-custodial sentence, (2) the use of secure custody versus open custody, and (3) the length of the custodial sentence. First, there is no evidence that Aboriginal youth are more likely than non-Aboriginal youth to receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing judges appear to base the decision to impose custody on traditional factors such as criminal history and the severity of the offence. Second, there is no convincing evidence to suggest that Aboriginal youth are more likely than non-Aboriginal youth to receive a secure custody sentence. Lastly, there is evidence to suggest, however, that Aboriginal youth are likely to receive a longer custodial sentence than non-Aboriginal youth, regardless of standard aggravating factors such as criminal history and offence severity.

This chapter reviews the provision on suspended sentences. The Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences confirms that ‘a suspended sentence must not be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.’ A magistrates’ court may suspend a sentence of not less than 14 days and not more than six months. A custodial sentence that is suspended should be for the same term that would have applied if the sentence was to be served immediately. The chapter then looks at section 287 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which provides for requirements that may be imposed as part of a suspended sentence. It also considers the breach of suspended sentence orders.

There have been few studies examining the impact of sentencing decisions on recidivism in individuals who commit sexual offences, which is important as this population may face more stigma, and different conditions in the community, than individuals who have committed non-sexual offences. The present study examined how sentence type and custodial sentence length impacted the incidence of sexual, violent, and non-violent recidivism in 659 Canadian men who were convicted of a sexual offence. Findings suggested that custodial sentences were associated with a greater likelihood of reoffending for all types of recidivism, except sexual recidivism. Custodial sentences of less than two years were consistently associated with an increased likelihood of non-sexual recidivism compared with those who served no time in custody. There was more mixed evidence for whether custodial sentences and custodial sentence length added to the prediction of recidivism once risk and sexual offence type were accounted for. Practice Impact StatementCustodial sentences, including shorter custodial sentences, was associated with increased violent and non-violent reoffending. Accounting for risk and type of sexual offence introduced greater uncertainty regarding the relationship between sentencing factors and recidivism. These findings contribute to the larger body of literature that questions the rehabilitative impact of lengthy custodial sentences.

Previous research has focused on suicide among male prisoners and ex-prisoners, but little is known about risk in the wider offender population. To examine suicide risk over 3 decades among all people processed by a national criminal justice system. Nested case-control study. The whole Danish population. Interlinked national registers identified all adult suicides during 1981 to 2006 according to any criminal justice system contact since 1980. Exposure was defined according to history of criminal justice adjudication, up to and including each subject's last judicial verdict before suicide (or date of matching for controls). There were 27 219 suicides and 524 899 controls matched on age, sex, and time, ie, controls were alive when their matched case died. Suicide. More than a third of all male cases had a criminal justice history, but relative risk against the general population was higher for women than men. Independent effects linked with criminal justice exposure persisted with confounder adjustment. Suicide risk was markedly elevated with custodial sentencing, but the strongest effects were with sentencing to psychiatric treatment and with charges conditionally withdrawn. Risk was raised even in people with a criminal justice history but without custodial sentences or guilty verdicts. It was especially high with recent or frequent contact and in people charged with violent offenses. We examined a section of society in which major health and social problems frequently coexist including offending, psychopathology, and suicidal behavior. The need for developing more far-reaching national suicide prevention strategies is indicated. In particular, improved mental health service provision is needed for all people in contact with the criminal justice system, including those not found guilty and those not given custodial sentences. Our findings also suggest that public services should be better coordinated to tackle co-occurring health and social problems more effectively.

The ultimate purpose of the prison industry over the years was for the incarceration of criminals to serve their custodial sentence, which was later fused with rehabilitation programs to reform criminals to become better citizens after being released from custodial sentences. However, the outcome of the reformation of convicts after released from the prison has been a sad story than expected success cases. Hence, the theoretical proposition of the paper with respect to the prison industry of Ghana is to resolve recidivism, promote inmates’ skill upgrade and labour reformation programs to become socio-economic beneficial during and after a custodial sentence.

Summary Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters permits decisions to move from one European State to another. It is a key element for the development of judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the European Union. Its implementation, including recognition of judgments on custodial sentences, was one of the main areas of European Union activity regarding criminal justice. The Slovak Republic has implemented European requirements. The question which begs consideration is whether Slovak national law fulfils such requirements and if they are applicable in Slovak legal practice. The assessment of national implementation of European requirements on recognition of judgments on custodial sentences and its applicability in Slovak legal practice is therefore needed. The paper analyses relevant literature, legislation, case-law and related official documents of the European Union. Moreover, it compares Slovak national law with European requirements. At the outset it briefly assets historical background of the mechanism. In principle, the system works, but there is the possibility for its enhancement..

Empowerment not only benefits patients but also provides support and assistance to their family members, especially in cases when patients are subject to custodial protection sentences. The positive effects of empowerment on patients' family members may be summarized into three main aspects, including: enhancing their engagement in healthcare, alleviating their anxiety, and enhancing their caregiving skills. With regard to enhancing engagement in healthcare, family members receive health education that provides an overview of the illness, treatment options, prognosis, and key nursing points and allows them to better understand the patient's condition and actively participate in decision-making. With regard to alleviating anxiety, patients under custodial protection sentences are involved in legal problems, which results in higher levels of stress for family members compared to their peers caring for general patients. Through emotional support and active listening, nurses provide opportunities for family members to express their concerns and offer comfort and encouragement, helping them cope with difficulties and pressures. With regard to enhancing caregiving skills, the purpose of custodial protection sentences is to prevent recidivism, and family members bear significant responsibility for caregiving after discharge. Nurses can share similar caregiving experiences from their ward, educate family members about observing symptoms, and provide guidance, thereby strengthening their caregiving capabilities. In addition, with regard to the disposition of patients, nurses assist family members to understand the medical process and provide necessary guidance, ensuring family members have a clear understanding and are respected during the preparations for discharge. Based on related theoretical frameworks and practical experiences, this research highlights the positive role of empowerment in enhancing the caregiving abilities and satisfaction of the family members of patients, particularly those subject to custodial protection sentences.

This chapter details the youth-specific sentencing guidelines for robbery. In a case where a child or young person has offended for the first time and has pleaded guilty to committing an offence which is on the cusp of the custody threshold, the Youth Offending Team should be encouraged to convene a youth offender panel prior to sentence where the child or young person is asked to attend before a panel and agree an intensive contract. The court determines the length of the order but a Referral Order Panel determines the requirements of the order. If a custodial sentence is imposed, the court must state its reasons for being satisfied that the offence is so serious that no other sanction would be appropriate. Where a custodial sentence is unavoidable, the length of custody imposed must be the shortest commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.