Attorney General’s References (Nos 115 and 116 of 2007); R v M and another [2008] EWCA Crim 795, [2008] All ER (D) 47 (May)
The requirement (under s 174(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) that, where guidelines indicate that a sentence of a particular kind or within a particular range would normally be appropriate but the actual sentence is of a different kind or is outside that range, the court should state the reasons for deciding on a sentence of a different kind or outside that range, is not a mere formality.
The public, the victim, and the defendant are entitled to know why there has been a departure. If the judge is going to pass a non-custodial sentence, where it is obvious that the guidelines require a custodial sentence, and the judge knows that the victim might not understand it, it is essential that the reasons for the departure are explained, so the public can understand why the court is departing from the norm.
Moreover, the thought process of producing reasons can point to a potential error in adopting the course of action contemplated.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
