Learning Outcomes
This article provides an overview of the principles of mitigation in sentencing and the structure and purpose of a plea in mitigation. For the SQE1 assessments, you will need to understand the factors that can lessen the seriousness of an offence or reflect personal circumstances that warrant leniency. You will also need to know how these factors are presented to the court. Your understanding of these subjects will enable you to identify and apply the relevant legal rules and principles to SQE1-style single best answer MCQs.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required to understand the practical application of mitigation principles within the sentencing framework. It is likely that you will be required to identify relevant mitigating factors in a given scenario and/or understand the structure and purpose of a plea in mitigation.
An appreciation of mitigation is essential for advising clients facing sentence and for effective advocacy.
As you work through this article, remember to pay particular attention in your revision to:
- the distinction between mitigating factors related to the offence and those related to the offender
- the key statutory provisions governing mitigation (e.g., Criminal Justice Act 2003) and the role of Sentencing Council guidelines
- how mitigating factors are weighed against aggravating factors
- the purpose and structure of a plea in mitigation.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Which of the following is an offender-specific mitigating factor?
- Lack of premeditation
- Provocation by the victim
- Previous good character
- Minor role in the offence
-
True or False? The Sentencing Council guidelines are strictly binding on all courts when determining sentence.
-
Which piece of legislation provides the main statutory framework for sentencing, including considering the seriousness of the offence?
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
- Theft Act 1968
- Criminal Justice Act 2003
- Coroners and Justice Act 2009
-
What is the primary purpose of a plea in mitigation?
Introduction
Following a conviction or a guilty plea, the court proceeds to sentence the offender. The sentence imposed should reflect the seriousness of the offence committed, balanced against any factors that lessen the offender's culpability or warrant leniency. These factors are collectively known as mitigation. The process by which these factors are presented to the court by the defence advocate is known as the plea in mitigation. Understanding these concepts is essential for advising clients and representing them effectively at sentencing hearings.
The Concept of Mitigation
Mitigation refers to information presented to the court concerning either the offence itself or the offender, which may persuade the court to impose a less severe sentence than might otherwise be appropriate. The court has a duty to consider all relevant mitigating factors alongside any aggravating factors when determining the appropriate sentence.
Key Term: Mitigation Factors presented to the court that may reduce the seriousness of an offence or the offender's culpability, potentially leading to a less severe sentence.
Key Term: Aggravating Factors Factors relating to the offence or the offender that increase the seriousness of the offence and may lead to a more severe sentence. Examples include previous convictions, premeditation, or targeting a vulnerable victim.
The Sentencing Framework
Sentencing in England and Wales operates within a framework established by legislation and guided by the Sentencing Council. The Sentencing Act 2020 now consolidates much of the procedural law, but key principles regarding seriousness were established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Courts must consider the purposes of sentencing, which include punishment, crime reduction (including deterrence), reform and rehabilitation, public protection, and reparation (Sentencing Act 2020, s. 57).
The court must assess the seriousness of the offence by considering the offender's culpability and the harm caused, intended, or risked (Sentencing Act 2020, s. 63). Mitigation relates directly to reducing the assessment of culpability or demonstrating factors that suggest a departure from the sentence level indicated by the harm caused.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
The Sentencing Council issues guidelines for specific offences and overarching principles. These guidelines provide starting points and category ranges for sentences based on assessed culpability and harm. They also list common aggravating and mitigating factors.
Key Term: Sentencing Council Guidelines Guidelines issued to courts in England and Wales to ensure consistency in sentencing. Courts must follow relevant guidelines unless it is contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
While courts are required to follow the guidelines, they retain judicial discretion. A departure from the guidelines may be justified if the specific circumstances of the case warrant it, but the court must provide reasons for such a departure.
Types of Mitigating Factors
Mitigating factors generally fall into two categories: those relating to the commission of the offence and those relating to the offender personally.
Offence Mitigation
These factors concern the circumstances in which the offence was committed and may reduce the offender's culpability. Examples include:
- Minor role: The offender played a limited part in a group offence.
- Lack of premeditation: The offence was impulsive or spontaneous rather than planned.
- Provocation: The offender was provoked, although this may fall short of the specific requirements for the partial defence of loss of control in murder cases.
- Element of self-defence: Force used was excessive but there was an initial need for self-defence.
- Coercion or intimidation: The offender acted under pressure or threats, falling short of duress.
Offender Mitigation
These factors relate to the offender's background, circumstances, and behaviour before and after the offence. They may justify leniency even if the offence itself is serious.
Key Term: Offender Mitigation Personal circumstances relating to the offender which, although not excusing the offence, may warrant a less severe sentence. These focus on the individual rather than the specifics of the crime itself.
Common examples include:
- Previous good character/exemplary conduct: An offender with no or irrelevant previous convictions may be treated more leniently, as the offence may be seen as out of character.
- Age and lack of maturity: Youth or lack of maturity can reduce culpability. Old age or infirmity may also be relevant.
- Mental disorder or disability: A mental health condition or learning disability linked to the commission of the offence may reduce culpability.
- Physical ill-health: Particularly serious ill-health may justify a less severe sentence.
- Remorse: Genuine remorse demonstrated by the offender can be a powerful mitigating factor. This is often evidenced by cooperation with authorities or attempts at reparation.
- Difficult personal circumstances: Factors such as acting as a sole or primary carer for dependents, experiencing bereavement, or facing significant personal hardship may be considered.
- Steps taken towards rehabilitation: Evidence that the offender is addressing core issues (e.g., substance abuse, anger management) can indicate a lower risk of reoffending.
Worked Example 1.1
David pleads guilty to theft from his employer. He stole £500 over several months. He is 22 years old, has no previous convictions, and explains he stole the money because his mother was terminally ill, and he needed funds to help cover her care costs. He shows evidence of repaying £200 before being caught and expresses deep regret in his police interview.
Identify the potential mitigating factors in David's case.
Answer: Potential mitigating factors include:
- Offender mitigation:
- Previous good character (no convictions).
- Age (relative youth).
- Difficult personal circumstances (mother's terminal illness motivating, though not excusing, the theft).
- Demonstrated remorse (expressed deep regret).
- Steps towards reparation (repaid some money before detection).
- Offence mitigation:
- Potentially limited period of offending (depending on the timeframe 'several months' covers).
- The relatively low value stolen (£500).
The Plea in Mitigation
The plea in mitigation is the address made by the defence advocate to the court after conviction (or guilty plea) but before sentence is passed. Its purpose is to persuade the court to impose the most lenient sentence reasonably possible by highlighting all relevant mitigating factors.
Key Term: Plea in Mitigation A speech made by the defence advocate after conviction but before sentencing, presenting mitigating factors to the court to argue for a reduced sentence.
Structure and Content
A well-structured plea in mitigation will typically cover:
- The Offence: Briefly acknowledge the offence but focus on any mitigating aspects surrounding its commission (e.g., lack of premeditation, provocation, minor role). Avoid appearing to minimise the seriousness unduly.
- The Offender: Present the offender's background, circumstances, and character in a favourable light. Highlight factors like age, health, previous good character, family responsibilities, employment history, remorse, and efforts at rehabilitation.
- Addressing Aggravating Factors: Acknowledge any aggravating factors identified by the prosecution or the court but seek to lessen their impact by balancing them against the mitigation presented.
- Sentencing Guidelines: Refer to the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, indicating where the offence falls within the suggested range and arguing why mitigation justifies a sentence at the lower end or potentially outside the range (e.g., favouring a community order over custody).
- Proposal for Sentence: Often, the advocate will conclude by suggesting an appropriate type and level of sentence, explaining how it meets the purposes of sentencing while reflecting the mitigation offered.
Worked Example 1.2
An advocate is preparing a plea in mitigation for David (from Worked Example 1.1).
Outline the key points the advocate should make.
Answer: The advocate should structure the plea to:
- Acknowledge the seriousness of theft from an employer (breach of trust).
- Highlight the mitigating factors relating to the offence: relatively low value, possibly limited period.
- Focus heavily on offender mitigation: David's youth, previous good character, the powerful emotional context of his mother's illness, his genuine remorse evidenced early on, and the fact he had already started making repayments before being caught.
- Refer to sentencing guidelines for theft, arguing that the mitigation places the offence at the lower end of culpability/harm categories.
- Suggest a non-custodial sentence (e.g., a community order perhaps with unpaid work or a fine) is appropriate, reflecting the mitigation and balancing punishment with rehabilitation prospects.
Exam Warning
Mitigation cannot negate guilt once established, nor can it justify the offence. Its purpose is solely to influence the level of sentence imposed by the court. Avoid arguments in mitigation that attempt to re-litigate the facts or deny responsibility for the offence committed.
Revision Tip
When analysing sentencing scenarios, create two columns: 'Aggravating Factors' and 'Mitigating Factors'. Listing the points for each side helps structure your thinking and identify the key issues for a potential plea in mitigation, mirroring how an advocate prepares.
Newton Hearings
Sometimes, a defendant pleads guilty but disputes the version of facts presented by the prosecution. If this factual dispute is significant enough to materially affect the appropriate sentence, the court may hold a Newton hearing.
Key Term: Newton Hearing A hearing where a judge (or magistrates) determines the factual basis for sentencing after a guilty plea, when the defence and prosecution versions of the facts differ significantly. Evidence may be called by both sides.
The burden of proof in a Newton hearing lies on the prosecution to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that their version of the facts is correct. If the court accepts the defence version, or is unsure, the defendant will be sentenced on their version of the facts. Importantly, a defendant who loses a Newton hearing may receive less credit (discount) for their guilty plea, as the issue had to be contested.
Worked Example 1.3
Sarah pleads guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The prosecution case is that she kicked the victim repeatedly while they were on the ground. Sarah accepts punching the victim once, causing them to fall, but denies any kicking. The level of violence (a single punch vs repeated kicking) would significantly affect the sentence.
What procedure should the court follow?
Answer: The court should hold a Newton hearing. The prosecution would call evidence (e.g., the victim, eyewitnesses, medical evidence) to try and prove their version (repeated kicking) beyond reasonable doubt. Sarah could give evidence denying the kicking. The judge/magistrates would decide which version of events they accept and sentence Sarah accordingly.
Summary
- Mitigation refers to factors reducing the seriousness of the offence or the offender's culpability.
- Courts must consider mitigation alongside aggravating factors within the statutory sentencing framework (Sentencing Act 2020) and Sentencing Council Guidelines.
- Mitigating factors can relate to the offence (e.g., minor role, lack of planning) or the offender (e.g., good character, age, health, remorse, personal circumstances).
- A plea in mitigation is the defence advocate's speech presenting these factors to argue for a lenient sentence.
- Newton hearings resolve significant factual disputes after a guilty plea but before sentencing.
- Credit for a guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor, reduced if facts are contested in a Newton hearing.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Mitigation involves factors lessening offence seriousness or offender culpability.
- Courts consider mitigation within the Sentencing Act 2020 framework and Sentencing Council guidelines.
- Mitigating factors can be offence-specific (e.g., provocation, limited role) or offender-specific (e.g., age, remorse, good character, health).
- Aggravating factors increase seriousness and may counteract mitigation.
- The plea in mitigation is the defence presentation of mitigating factors before sentencing.
- A Newton hearing resolves factual disputes post-guilty plea that affect sentencing level.
- Credit for a guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor, reduced if facts are contested in a Newton hearing.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Mitigation
- Aggravating Factors
- Sentencing Council Guidelines
- Offender Mitigation
- Plea in Mitigation
- Newton Hearing
