Community orders |
|
| Circumstance | Approach |
| Multiple offences attracting community orders – crossing the custody threshold | If the offences are all imprisonable and none of the individual sentences merit a custodial sentence, the custody threshold can be crossed by reason of multiple offending (section 230(2) of the Sentencing Code). If the custody threshold has been passed, the court should refer to the offence ranges in sentencing guidelines for the offences and to the general principles. |
| Multiple offences, where one offence would merit immediate custody and one offence would merit a community order | A community order should not be ordered to run consecutively to or concurrently with a custodial sentence. Instead the court should generally impose one custodial sentence that is aggravated appropriately by the presence of the associated offences. The alternative option is to impose no separate penalty for the offence of lesser seriousness. |
| Offender convicted of more than one offence where a community order is appropriate | A community order is a composite package rather than an accumulation of sentences attached to individual counts. The court should generally impose a single community order that reflects the overall criminality of the offending behaviour. Where it is necessary to impose more than one community order, these should be ordered to run concurrently and for ease of administration, each of the orders should be identical. |
| Offender convicted of an offence while serving a community order | The power to deal with the offender depends on the offender being convicted while the order is still in force; it does not arise where the order has expired, even if the additional offence was committed while it was still current.
(Paragraphs 22 and 25 of Schedule 10 to the Sentencing Code) Community order imposed by magistrates’ court If an offender, in respect of whom a community order made by a magistrates’ court is in force, is convicted by a magistrates’ court of an additional offence, the magistrates’ court should ordinarily revoke the previous community order and sentence afresh for both the original and the additional offence (see below for further guidance). Community order imposed by the Crown Court Where the magistrates’ court has no power to commit the new offence it should sentence the new offence and commit the offender to the Crown Court to be re-sentenced for the original offence. When sentencing both the original offence and the new offence the sentencing court should consider the overall seriousness of the offending behaviour taking into account the additional offence and the original offence. The court should consider whether the combination of offences is sufficiently serious to justify a custodial sentence. If the court does not consider that custody is necessary, it should impose identical community orders for each offence to run concurrently that reflect the totality of the overall criminality. The court must take into account the extent to which the offender complied with the requirements of the previous order. Where the offender was subject to an unpaid work requirement on the earlier order, the number of hours remaining to be completed on that requirement should ordinarily be added to the number of hours of unpaid work the court would impose for the new offence. If the aggregate number of hours would exceed 300 (which cannot be exceeded in the new order), the court should consider imposing a further punitive requirement (or a fine) in addition to unpaid work. In all cases the court must ensure that requirements imposed are the most suitable for the offender – see the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline. While it is generally preferable to revoke any earlier order, there may be situations where for reasons of continuity it would be helpful to allow an existing order to continue alongside a new order. It is not unlawful for the court to leave the existing community order running and impose a new community order even if the aggregate number of hours of unpaid work exceeded 300. However, it will be generally undesirable to make an order which imposes an unpaid work requirement which means that the aggregate number of unpaid work hours is significantly greater. |