Halliday Report and Persistent Offenders (From Reform and Punishment: The Future of Sentencing, P 181-196, 2002, Sue Rex and Michael Tonry, eds. -- See NCJ-197122)

• NCJ Number: 197131
• Author(s): Peter Jones
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 16 pages
• Sale Source: Willan Publishing
• Publication Format: Book (Hardbound)
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This chapter reviews the implementation of two proposals presented in the 2001 Home Office Sentencing Framework Review or Halliday Report reforming sentencing law and practice in England and Wales. The proposal recommendations address persistent offenders through increasing the severity of the sentence based on previous convictions and address the courts development of a new sentence review capacity.

Abstract

In this chapter, the author discusses proposals offered under the Home Office Sentencing Framework Review or Halliday Report on sentencing reform in England and Wales addressing the challenge presented by persistent offenders and the expansion of judicial involvement and oversight of the administration of sentence. The first proposal under the Halliday Report recommends modifying the existing “just deserts” philosophy by incorporating a new presumption that the severity of sentence should increase when an offender has recent previous convictions. The author examines the effect of the recommendation based on the treatment of the typical low-level persistent offender. The second proposal recommends that courts develop a new “sentence review” capacity dealing with breaches of community sentences, hear appeals against recall to prison, authorize pre-release plans, and review progress during custodial and non-custodial sentences. The Report proposal would involve much greater judicial involvement in the content of the sentence imposed by the court and an extensive and enhanced role thereafter throughout the life of the sentence. In implementing the Halliday proposals, the author feels it important to ensure that the establishment of codified sentencing guidelines, providing differential sentencing entry points based on the offenders’ previous convictions, do not circumscribe judicial discretion. In the context of judicial involvement in sentence management, to build on the experiences of the courts to date and adequately equip and prepare the judiciary for their new roles, and to acknowledge the demands of the new proposals on all criminal justice agencies. Notes, reference