NCJ Number
74319
Journal
Law Institute Journal Volume: 54 Dated: (March 1980) Pages: 105-112
Date Published
1980
Length
8 pages
Annotation
The question of whether a guilty plea operates as a factor in mitigation of a sentence in a criminal court hearing in Victorian courts is explored; comparisons are drawn between Australian and English court practices.
Abstract
A guilty plea affects several areas of the criminal justice system, including plea bargaining practices. The English courts have produced a substantial body of case law and principles concerning the guilty plea and its impact upon a sentence. In England, a guilty plea acts, per se, as a mitigating factor and, by implication, as a demonstration of repentence and remorse. Thus, the English position establishes that sentence credit will be granted for a guilty plea. In Victoria, there are far fewer court pronouncements on the issue, and there is little debate. The most extensive Victorian statement on the impact of a guilty plea on sentence is contained in the 1977 case of R. v. Gray, which involved a guilty plea for armed robbery and other offenses. To the extent that the majority of the court in the Gray case said that a discount could be allowed for a guilty plea which does not manifestly represent repentance and remorse, the Victorian situation has moved closer to the English treatment of the subject. However, the main factor which distinguishes the two approaches is that the English courts have said that a guilty plea will generally attract a lighter sentence than a conviction upon a not guilty plea, whereas the Victorian court in the Gray case said that the matter is essentially discretionary, and that the court may take the plea and the circumstances surrounding it into account. There appears to be an inconsistency between the Gray and subsequent decisions, and the issue with regard to Victorian courts remains unclear. Five footnotes are provided.