Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour/ Human trafficking - for consultation only

Modern Slavery Act 2015, s.1, Modern Slavery Act 2015, s.2
Effective from: to be confirmed (draft for consultation only)

Triable either way
Maximum: life imprisonment
Offence range: High level community order – 18 years’ custody

This is a serious specified offence for the purposes of sections 224 and 225(2) (life sentence for serious offences) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

These are offences listed in Part 1 of Schedule 15B for the purposes of section 224A (life sentence for second listed offence) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

These are specified offences for the purposes of section 226A (extended sentence for certain violent, sexual or terrorism offences) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

User guide for this offence


Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

Applicability

In accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Sentencing Council issues this definitive guideline. It applies to all offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after the effective date of this guideline, regardless of the date of the offence.*

Section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides that when sentencing offences committed after 6 April 2010:

“Every court –

  1. must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, and
  2. must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function,

unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”

This guideline applies only to offenders aged 18 and older. General principles to be considered in the sentencing of children and young people are in the Sentencing Council definitive guideline, Overarching Principles – Sentencing Children and Young People.

*The maximum sentence that applies to an offence is the maximum that applied at the date of the offence.

Step 1 – Determining the offence category

Culpability

In assessing culpability, the court should weigh up all the factors of the case, including the offender’s role, to determine the appropriate level. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different categories, or where the level of the offender’s role is affected by the very small scale of the operation, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender’s culpability.

A – High culpability:

  • Leading role in the offending
  • Expectation of substantial financial advantage
  • High degree of planning/premeditation
  • Use or threat of a substantial degree of physical violence
  • Use or threat of a substantial degree of sexual violence or abuse

B – Medium culpability:

  • Significant role in the offending
  • Involves others in the offending whether by coercion, intimidation, exploitation or reward
  • Expectation of significant financial advantage
  • Some planning/premeditation
  • Use or threat of some physical violence
  • Use or threat of some sexual violence or abuse
  • Other threats towards victim(s) or their families
  • Other cases falling between A and C because:
  • Factors in both high and lower categories are present which balance each other out and/or
  • The offender’s culpability falls between the factors as described in A and C

C – Lower culpability:

  • Engaged by pressure, coercion or intimidation
  • Performs limited function under direction
  • Limited understanding/knowledge of the offending
  • Expectation of limited financial advantage
  • Little or no planning/premeditation

Harm

Use the factors given in the table below to identify the Harm category. If the offence involved multiple victims, sentencers may consider moving up a harm category or moving up substantially within a category range.

 

The assessment of harm may be assisted by available expert evidence, but may be made on the basis of factual evidence from the victim, including evidence contained in a Victim Personal Statement (VPS). Whether a VPS provides evidence which is sufficient for a finding of serious harm depends on the circumstances of the particular case and the contents of the VPS. However, the absence of a VPS (or other impact statement) should not be taken to indicate the absence of harm.

 

Loss of personal autonomy is an inherent feature of this offending and is reflected in sentencing levels. The nature of the relationship between offender and victim in modern slavery cases may mean that the victim does not recognise themselves as such, may minimise the seriousness of their treatment, may see the perpetrator as a friend or supporter, or may choose not to give evidence through shame, regret or fear.

 

Sentencers should therefore be careful not to assume that absence of evidence of harm from those trafficked or kept in slavery, servitude or in forced or compulsory labour indicates a lack of harm or seriousness. A close examination of all the particular circumstances will be necessary.

Category 1

A category 2 offence may be elevated to category 1 by –

  • The extreme nature of one or more factors
  • The extreme impact caused by a combination of factors

Category 2

  • Exposure of victim(s) to high risk of death
  • Serious physical harm which has a substantial and/or long-term effect
  • Serious psychological harm which has a substantial and/or long-term effect
  • Substantial and long-term adverse impact on the victim’s daily life after the offending has ceased

Category 3

  • Some physical harm
  • Some psychological harm
  • Significant financial loss to the victim(s)
  • Exposure of victim(s) to additional risk of serious physical or psychological harm
  • Other cases falling between categories 2 and 4 because:
  • Factors in both categories 2 and 4 are present which balance each other out and/or
  • The level of harm falls between the factors as described in categories 2 and 4

Category 4

  • Limited physical harm
  • Limited psychological harm
  • Limited financial loss to the victim(s)

Step 2 – Starting point and category range

Having determined the category at step one, the court should use the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within the category range below. The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions.

Harm   Culpability  
  A B C
Category 1

Starting point
14 years’ custody

Starting point
12 years’ custody

Starting point
9 years’ custody

Category range
10 – 18 years’ custody

Category range
9 –14 years’ custody

Category range
7 – 11 years’ custody

Category 2

Starting point
10 years’ custody

Starting point
 8 years’ custody

Starting point
6 years’ custody

Category range
8 – 12 years’ custody

Category range
6 – 10 years’ custody

Category range
5 – 8 years’ custody

Category 3

Starting point
  8 years’ custody

Starting point
6 years’ custody

Starting point
4 years’ custody

Category range
6 –10 years’ custody

Category range
5 – 8 years’ custody

Category range
3 – 6 years’ custody

Category 4

Starting point
5 years’ custody

Starting point
3 years’ custody

Starting point
26 weeks’ custody

Category range
4 – 7 years’ custody

Category range
1 – 5 years’ custody

Category range
High level community order – 18 months’ custody

Community orders

For further information see Imposition of community and custodial sentences.

  • The seriousness of the offence should be the initial factor in determining which requirements to include in a community order. Offence specific guidelines refer to three sentencing levels within the community order band based on offence seriousness (low, medium and high). The culpability and harm present in the offence(s) should be considered to identify which of the three sentencing levels within the community order band is appropriate. See below for non-exhaustive examples of requirements that might be appropriate in each.
  • At least one requirement MUST be imposed for the purpose of punishment and/or a fine imposed in addition to the community order unless there are exceptional circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender that would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so.
  • A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence.
  • Community orders can fulfil all of the purposes of sentencing. In particular, they can have the effect of restricting the offender’s liberty while providing punishment in the community, rehabilitation for the offender, and/or ensuring that the offender engages in reparative activities.
  • A community order must not be imposed unless the offence is ‘serious enough to warrant such a sentence’. Where an offender is being sentenced for a non-imprisonable offence, there is no power to make a community order.
  • Sentencers must consider all available disposals at the time of sentence; even where the threshold for a community sentence has been passed, a fine or discharge may be an appropriate penalty. In particular, a Band D fine may be an appropriate alternative to a community order.
  • The court must ensure that the restriction on the offender’s liberty is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and that the requirements imposed are the most suitable for the offender.
  • Sentences should not necessarily escalate from one community order range to the next on each sentencing occasion. The decision as to the appropriate range of community order should be based upon the seriousness of the new offence(s) (which will take into account any previous convictions).
  • In many cases, a pre-sentence report will be pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a community order and, if so, whether particular requirements or combinations of requirements are suitable for an individual offender. Whenever the court reaches the provisional view that a community order may be appropriate, it should request a pre-sentence report (whether written or verbal) unless the court is of the opinion that a report is unnecessary in all the circumstances of the case.
  • It may be helpful to indicate to the National Probation Service the court’s preliminary opinion as to which of the three sentencing ranges is relevant and the purpose(s) of sentencing that the package of requirements is expected to fulfil. Ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case. If an adjournment cannot be avoided, the information should be provided to the National Probation Service in written form and a copy retained on the court file for the benefit of the sentencing court. However, the court must make clear to the offender that all sentencing options remain open including, in appropriate cases, committal for sentence to the Crown Court.
Low Medium High
Offences only just cross community order threshold, where the seriousness of the offence or the nature of the offender’s record means that a discharge or fine is inappropriate

In general, only one requirement will be appropriate and the length may be curtailed if additional requirements are necessary

Offences that obviously fall within the community order band Offences only just fall below the custody threshold or the custody threshold is crossed but a community order is more appropriate in the circumstances

More intensive sentences which combine two or more requirements may be appropriate

Suitable requirements might include:

  • Any appropriate rehabilitative requirement(s)
  • 40 – 80 hours of unpaid work
  • Curfew requirement for example up to 16 hours per day for a few weeks
  • Exclusion requirement, for a few months
  • Prohibited activity requirement
  • Attendance centre requirement (where available)
Suitable requirements might include:

  • Any appropriate rehabilitative requirement(s)
  •  80 – 150 hours of unpaid work
  • Curfew requirement for example up to 16 hours for 2 – 3 months
  • Exclusion requirement lasting in the region of 6 months
  • Prohibited activity requirement
Suitable requirements might include:

  • Any appropriate rehabilitative requirement(s)
  • 150 – 300 hours of unpaid work
  • Curfew requirement for example up to 16 hours per day for 4 – 12 months
  • Exclusion requirement lasting in the region of 12 months

* If order does not contain a punitive requirement, suggested fine levels are indicated below:

BAND A FINE

BAND B FINE

BAND C FINE

Custodial sentences

Sentencing flowcharts are available at Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences definitive guideline.


The approach to the imposition of a custodial sentence should be as follows:

1) Has the custody threshold been passed?

  • A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless 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.
  • There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offence-specific guidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no offence specific guideline is available to determine seriousness, the harm caused by the offence, the culpability of the offender and any previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment.
  • The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.

2) Is it unavoidable that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed?

  • Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.
  • For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.

3) What is the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence?

  • In considering this the court must NOT consider any licence or post sentence supervision requirements which may subsequently be imposed upon the offender’s release.

4) Can the sentence be suspended?

  • 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.

The following factors should be weighed in considering whether it is possible to suspend the sentence:

Factors indicating that it would not be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence

Factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence

Offender presents a risk/danger to the public

Realistic prospect of rehabilitation

Appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody

Strong personal mitigation

History of poor compliance with court orders

Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others

The imposition of a custodial sentence is both punishment and a deterrent. To ensure that the overall terms of the suspended sentence are commensurate with offence seriousness, care must be taken to ensure requirements imposed are not excessive. A court wishing to impose onerous or intensive requirements should reconsider whether a community sentence might be more appropriate.

Pre-sentence report

Whenever the court reaches the provisional view that:

  • the custody threshold has been passed; and, if so
  • the length of imprisonment which represents the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence;

the court should obtain a pre-sentence report, whether verbal or written, unless the court considers a report to be unnecessary. Ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case.

Magistrates: Consult your legal adviser before deciding to sentence to custody without a pre-sentence report.

Suspended Sentences: General Guidance

i) The guidance regarding pre-sentence reports applies if suspending custody.

ii) If the court imposes a term of imprisonment of between 14 days and 2 years (subject to magistrates’ courts sentencing powers), it may suspend the sentence for between 6 months and 2 years (the ‘operational period’). The time for which a sentence is suspended should reflect the length of the sentence; up to 12 months might normally be appropriate for a suspended sentence of up to 6 months.

iii) Where the court imposes two or more sentences to be served consecutively, the court may suspend the sentence where the aggregate of the terms is between 14 days and 2 years (subject to magistrates’ courts sentencing powers).

iv) When the court suspends a sentence, it may impose one or more requirements for the offender to undertake in the community. The requirements are identical to those available for community orders, see the guideline on Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.

v) A custodial sentence that is suspended should be for the same term that would have applied if the sentence was to be served immediately.

Where another offence or offences arise out of the same incident or facts concurrent sentences reflecting the overall criminality of offending will ordinarily be appropriate: please refer to the Offences Taken into Consideration and Totality guideline and step six of this guideline.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of additional elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender.  Identify whether a combination of these or other relevant factors should result in any upward or downward adjustment from the sentence arrived at so far.

Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors already taken into account in assessing culpability

Factors increasing seriousness

Statutory aggravating factors:

  • Previous convictions,

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

    Guidance on the use of previous convictions

    The following guidance should be considered when seeking to determine the degree to which previous convictions should aggravate sentence:

    Section 143 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that:

    In considering the seriousness of an offence (“the current offence”) committed by an offender who has one or more previous convictions, the court must treat each previous conviction as an aggravating factor if (in the case of that conviction) the court considers that it can reasonably be so treated having regard, in particular, to—

    (a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence, and

    (b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction.

    1. Previous convictions are considered at step two in the Council’s offence-specific guidelines.
    2. The primary significance of previous convictions (including convictions in other jurisdictions) is the extent to which they indicate trends in offending behaviour and possibly the offender’s response to earlier sentences.
    3. Previous convictions are normally relevant to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
    4. Previous convictions of a type different from the current offence may be relevant where they are an indication of persistent offending or escalation and/or a failure to comply with previous court orders.
    5. Numerous and frequent previous convictions might indicate an underlying problem (for example, an addiction) that could be addressed more effectively in the community and will not necessarily indicate that a custodial sentence is necessary.
    6. If the offender received a non-custodial disposal for the previous offence, a court should not necessarily move to a custodial sentence for the fresh offence.
    7. In cases involving significant persistent offending, the community and custody thresholds may be crossed even though the current offence normally warrants a lesser sentence. If a custodial sentence is imposed it should be proportionate and kept to the necessary minimum.
    8. The aggravating effect of relevant previous convictions reduces with the passage of time; older convictions are less relevant to the offender’s culpability for the current offence and less likely to be predictive of future offending.
    9. Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
    10. The court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it. Where there has been a significant gap between previous and current convictions or a reduction in the frequency of offending this may indicate that the offender has made attempts to desist from offending in which case the aggravating effect of the previous offending will diminish.
    11. Where the current offence is significantly less serious than the previous conviction (suggesting a decline in the gravity of offending), the previous conviction may carry less weight.
    12. When considering the totality of previous offending a court should take a rounded view of the previous crimes and not simply aggregate the individual offences.
    13. Where information is available on the context of previous offending this may assist the court in assessing the relevance of that prior offending to the current offence
    having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
  • Offence committed whilst on bail

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

    S143 (3) Criminal Justice Act 2003 states:

    In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court must treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor.

  • Offence motivated by, or demonstrating hostility based on any of the following characteristics or presumed characteristics of the victim: religion, race, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

    See below for the statutory provisions. 

    • Note the requirement for the court to state that the offence has been aggravated by the relevant hostility.
    • Where the element of hostility is core to the offending, the aggravation will be higher than where it plays a lesser role.

    Increase in sentences for racial or religious aggravation

    s145(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states:

    If the offence was racially or religiously aggravated, the court—

    (a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and

    (b) must state in open court that the offence was so aggravated.

    An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for these purposes if—

    • at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence, hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
    • the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.

    “membership”, in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;

    “presumed” means presumed by the offender.

    It is immaterial whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned above.

    “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

    “religious group” means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

    Increase in sentences for aggravation related to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

    s146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states:

    (1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).

    (2) Those circumstances are—

    (a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—

    (i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim,

    (ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or

    (iii) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or

    (b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—

    (i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation,

    (ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability or

    (iii) by hostility towards persons who are transgender.

    (3) The court—

    (a) must treat the fact that the offence was committed in any of those circumstances as an aggravating factor, and

    (b) must state in open court that the offence was committed in such circumstances.

    (4) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.

    (5) In this section “disability” means any physical or mental impairment.

    (6) In this section references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment.

Other aggravating factors:

  • Offending took place over a long period of time (in the context of these offences, this is likely to mean months or years) where not taken into account at step 1
  • Deliberate isolation of the victim, including steps taken to prevent the victim reporting the offence or obtaining assistance (above that which is inherent in the offence)
  • Deliberate targeting of particularly vulnerable victims

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

    • An offence is more serious if the victim is vulnerable because of personal circumstances such as (but not limited to) age, illness or disability (unless the vulnerability of the victim is an element of the offence).
    • Other factors such as the victim being isolated, incapacitated through drink or being in an unfamiliar situation may lead to a court considering that the offence is more serious.
    • The extent to which any vulnerability may impact on the sentence is a matter for the court to weigh up in each case.
    • Culpability will be increased if the offender targeted a victim because of an actual or perceived vulnerability.
    • Culpability will be increased if the victim is made vulnerable by the actions of the offender (such as a victim who has been intimidated or isolated by the offender).
    • Culpability is increased if an offender persisted in the offending once it was obvious that the victim was vulnerable (for example continuing to attack an injured victim).
    • The level of harm (physical, psychological or financial) is likely to be increased if the victim is vulnerable.
  • Victim’s passport or identity documents removed
  • Gratuitous degradation of victim

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

    Where an offender deliberately causes additional harm to a victim over and above that which is an essential element of the offence - this will increase seriousness. Examples may include, but are not limited to, posts of images on social media designed to cause additional distress to the victim.

    Where any such actions are the subject of separate charges, this should be taken into account when assessing totality.

    When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.

  • Large-scale, sophisticated and/or commercial operation (where not taken into account at step 1)
  • Abuse of a significant degree of trust/responsibility
  • Substantial measures taken to restrain the victim

Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation

  • No recent or relevant convictions

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

    • First time offenders usually represent a lower risk of reoffending. Reoffending rates for first offenders are significantly lower than rates for repeat offenders. In addition, first offenders are normally regarded as less blameworthy than offenders who have committed the same crime several times already. For these reasons first offenders receive a mitigated sentence.
    • Where there are previous offences but these are old and /or are for offending of a different nature, the sentence will normally be reduced to reflect that the new offence is not part of a pattern of offending and there is therefore a lower likelihood of reoffending.
    • When assessing whether a previous conviction is ‘recent’ the court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it. 
    • Previous convictions are likely to be ‘relevant’ when they share characteristics with the current offence (examples of such characteristics include, but are not limited to: dishonesty, violence, abuse of position or trust, use or possession of weapons, disobedience of court orders).  In general the more serious the previous offending the longer it will retain relevance.
  • Offender has been a victim of slavery/trafficking, whether or not in circumstances related to this offence (where not taken into account at step 1)
  • Good character and/or exemplary conduct

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

    This factor may apply whether or not the offender has previous convictions.  Evidence that an offender has demonstrated positive good character through, for example, charitable works may reduce the sentence. 

    However, this factor is less likely to be relevant where the offending is very serious.  Where an offender has used their good character or status to facilitate or conceal the offending it could be treated as an aggravating factor.

  • Remorse

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

    The court will need to be satisfied that the offender is genuinely remorseful for the offending behaviour in order to reduce the sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).

    Lack of remorse should never be treated as an aggravating factor.

  • Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

    This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered.  See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.

    For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.

    Where custody is unavoidable consideration of the impact on dependants may be relevant to the length of the sentence imposed and whether the sentence can be suspended.

    For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less weight.

    ­When imposing a community sentence on an offender with primary caring responsibilities the effect on dependants must be considered in determining suitable requirements.

    In addition when sentencing an offender who is pregnant relevant considerations may include:

    • any effect of the sentence on the health of the offender and
    • any effect of the sentence on the unborn child

    The court should ensure that it has all relevant information about dependent children before deciding on sentence.

    When an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, the court must consider whether proper arrangements have been made for the care of any dependent children and if necessary consider adjourning sentence for this to be done.

    When considering a community or custodial sentence for an offender who has, or may have, caring responsibilities the court should ask the National Probation Service to address these issues in a PSR.

    Useful information can be found in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (see in particular Chapter 6 paragraphs 94-100)

     

  • Age/lack of maturity

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

    Age and/or lack of maturity can affect:

    • the offender’s responsibility for the offence and
    • the effect of the sentence on the offender.

    Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence.

    The emotional and developmental age of an offender is of at least equal importance to their chronological age (if not greater). 

    In particular young adults (typically aged 18-25) are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to:

    • evaluate the consequences of their actions
    • limit impulsivity
    • limit risk taking

    Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers.

    Immaturity can also result from atypical brain development. Environment plays a role in neurological development and factors such as adverse childhood experiences including deprivation and/or abuse may affect development.

    An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with custody and therefore may be more susceptible to self-harm in custody.

    An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with the requirements of a community order without appropriate support.

    There is a greater capacity for change in immature offenders and they may be receptive to opportunities to address their offending behaviour and change their conduct.

    Many young people who offend either stop committing crime, or begin a process of stopping, in their late teens and early twenties.  Therefore a young adult’s previous convictions may not be indicative of a tendency for further offending.

    Where the offender is a care leaver the court should enquire as to any effect a sentence may have on the offender’s ability to make use of support from the local authority. (Young adult care leavers are entitled to time limited support. Leaving care services may change at the age of 21 and cease at the age of 25, unless the young adult is in education at that point). See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 1.16 and 1.17).

    Where an offender has turned 18 between the commission of the offence and conviction the court should take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence was committed, but applying the purposes of sentencing adult offenders. See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3).

    When considering a custodial or community sentence for a young adult the National Probation Service should address these issues in a PSR.

  • Mental disorder or learning disability

    Effective from: 01 October 2020

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

    Refer to the Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline.

  • Physical disability or serious medical condition requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment

    Effective from: 01 October 2019

    Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

    • The court can take account of physical disability or a serious medical condition by way of mitigation as a reason for reducing the length of the sentence, either on the ground of the greater impact which imprisonment will have on the offender, or as a matter of generally expressed mercy in the individual circumstances of the case.
    • However, such a condition, even when it is difficult to treat in prison, will not automatically entitle the offender to a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.
    • There will always be a need to balance issues personal to an offender against the gravity of the offending (including the harm done to victims), and the public interest in imposing appropriate punishment for serious offending.
    • A terminal prognosis is not in itself a reason to reduce the sentence even further. The court must impose a sentence that properly meets the aims of sentencing even if it will carry the clear prospect that the offender will die in custody. The prospect of death in the near future will be a matter considered by the prison authorities and the Secretary of State under the early release on compassionate grounds procedure (ERCG).
    • But, an offender’s knowledge that he will likely face the prospect of death in prison, subject only to the ERCG provisions, is a factor that can be considered by the sentencing judge when determining the sentence that it would be just to impose.

Step 3 – Consider any factors which indicate a reduction for assistance to the prosecution

The court should take into account sections 73 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (assistance by defendants: reduction or review of sentence) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.

Step 4 – Reduction for guilty pleas

The court should take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea in accordance with section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the guideline for Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea (where first hearing is on or after 1 June 2017, or first hearing before 1 June 2017).

Step 5 – Dangerousness

The court should consider whether having regard to the criteria contained in Chapter 5 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 it would be appropriate to impose a life sentence (section 224A or section 225) or an extended sentence (section 226A). When sentencing offenders to a life sentence under these provisions, the notional determinate sentence should be used as the basis for the setting of a minimum term.

Step 6 – Totality principle

If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, or where the offender is already serving a sentence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the overall offending behaviour in accordance with the Totality guideline.

Step 7 – Ancillary orders

In all cases, the court must consider whether to make a compensation order and/or other ancillary orders. The following are most relevant in modern slavery cases:

Slavery and trafficking prevention orders

Under section 14 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, a court may make a slavery and trafficking prevention order against an offender convicted of a slavery or human trafficking offence, if it is satisfied that

  • there is a risk that the offender may commit a slavery or human trafficking offence, and
  • it is necessary to make the order for the purpose of protecting persons generally, or particular persons, from the physical or psychological harm which would be likely to occur if the offender committed such an offence.

Slavery and trafficking reparation orders

 Where a confiscation order has been made under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 the court may make a slavery and trafficking reparation order under section 8 of the 2015 Act, requiring the offender to pay compensation to the victim for any harm resulting from an offence under sections 1, 2 or 4 of that Act. In practice, the reparation will come out of the amount taken under the confiscation order.  In every eligible case, the court must consider whether to make a slavery and trafficking reparation order, and if one is not made the judge must give reasons.  However, a slavery and trafficking reparation order cannot be made if the court has made a compensation order under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Forfeiture

A court convicting someone on indictment of human trafficking under section 2 of the 2015 Act may order the forfeiture of a vehicle, ship or aircraft used or intended to be used in connection with the offence of which the person is convicted (see section 11 of the 2015 Act).

Step 8 – Reasons

Section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a duty to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, the sentence.

Step 9 – Consideration for time spent on bail

The court must consider whether to give credit for time spent on bail in accordance with section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.