News In Focus
2 December 2005
Judges disapprove Borders sentence guidelines
Guidelines devised for district courts in the Borders with a view to improving consistency in sentencing suffer from a number of defects, appeal judges have ruled.
The criminal appeal court, led by Lord Justice General Cullen, was considering appeals by Douglas Purvis and Duncan Pryde, who were both fined for possession of cannabis at their homes. In each case the justice referred to the guidelines while making allowance for other factors in selecting the fine imposed.
The court did not rule on an argument for the accused that the guidelines were unlawful beause only the High Court had power to pronounce an opinion on appropriate sentences. However it said the way the guidelines had been used in these cases was "objectionable" as infringing the principle that justice should be seen to be done.
"The guidelines were devised in private, and, as we understand, were not published", the Lord Justice General said. "More importantly, it was not made known to either appellant that they would be likely to be taken into account. In these circumstances we consider that the manner in which the fine was arrived was, in each case, not in accordance with natural justice."
The court however decided not to alter the level of fines to be paid by either accused.
Concluding, the Lord Justice General acknowledged that the aim of promoting consistency was a worthy one, but whether any recommendations would be endorsed by the High Court would depend on a number of factors, such as whether there had been consultation, whether they had been publicised and whether they appeared in themselves to be satisfactory.
The Borders guidelines had "a number of shortcomings", he said. They said nothing about any form of disposal alternative to a fine; in most cases they did not offer a range but appeared to prescribe a particular fine; there was nothing to explain or justify a calculation based on the value of drugs; and it was not clear what was meant by "mitigating circumstances". "In short we consider that the guidelines are not satisfactory for use by the justices."