NCJ Number
173477
Date Published
1994
Length
58 pages
Annotation
This paper analyzes and comments on the Sentencing Indication Scheme, recently piloted at the Downing Centre Complex of the District Court in Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
The scheme allows accused persons who have been committed for trial to elect at arraignment to divert from the listing process leading to trial and instead obtain an indicative sentence from the District Court judge, to be imposed should the applicant accept the sentence and plead guilty at that time. In the event the applicant rejects the indicative sentence, the matter is placed back in the trial listing before another judge who is not made aware of the previous sentencing indication proceedings. The scheme was piloted between June and November 1993, and results were statistically analyzed based on 230 requests for a sentencing indication hearing. The 230 requests included 110 requests from accused persons who had already been arraigned and were awaiting trial and 120 eligible new cases. Results showed that applicants were likely to have been charged with drug offenses, the pilot scheme appeared to attract seasoned rather than first offenders, and almost applicants were legally represented. Almost all matters where applicants accepted the indicative sentence were finalized within 5 weeks after the application was submitted. The amount of court sitting time saved, if all accused persons who accepted the indicative sentence had alternatively proceeded to trial, was estimated at over 200 weeks. Judges imposed more imprisonment sentences in the pilot scheme than during the previous 17 months. The real innovation in the Sentencing Indication Scheme involved retaining the primary and impartial role of the judge. Appendixes contain additional information on the Sentencing Indication Scheme and a coding form used to extract information from court files. 20 references, 19 tables, and 16 figures