When an offender is sentenced in court, the relevant punishment provisions and the sentencing framework laid down by the Court in previous cases (if any) set the baseline for sentencing. However, the Courts may consider various personal circumstances and other factors, or “mitigating factors” that may warrant a reduction in sentencing severity.
What principles do the Courts consider when sentencing?
The Courts are guided by four key sentencing principles when determining an appropriate sentence:
- Retribution (Proportionate Punishment): This principle emphasizes that the sentence should be commensurate with the offender’s blameworthiness and the severity of the crime.
- Deterrence: This principle aims to prevent future offenses and has two main aspects:
- General deterrence seeks to dissuade others in the community from committing similar crimes by demonstrating the consequences through the sentence imposed on a particular offender.
- Specific deterrence focuses on discouraging the convicted offender from re-offending, especially relevant for repeat offenders.
- Rehabilitation: This principle focuses on reforming the offender to prevent them from committing further crimes. It involves addressing the underlying reasons for the offending behaviour through compulsory rehabilitative measures. Rehabilitation is often given greater importance for young offenders (under 21 years old) as they may have less cognitive maturity and are generally more receptive to guidance.
- Prevention and Public Protection: The goal here is to prevent the offender from reoffending by incapacitating them or placing restrictions on them. This principle is particularly important for offenders who pose a threat to public safety and often results in longer periods of incarceration to protect society.
The Court determines the weight given to each principle based on the specific facts of each case. For instance, general deterrence and retribution typically receive more emphasis in cases involving vulnerable victims or premeditated offenses. Specific deterrence is weighed more heavily for offenders who reoffend despite prior punishment.
What constitutes a mitigating factor?
A mitigating factor is any personal situation or circumstance related to the commission of the offence that diminishes the culpability of an offender’s crime or suggests that a lesser sentence would be appropriate. Unlike defences that may absolve an offender of liability entirely, mitigating factors are considered when it is acknowledged that the offender is guilty, while advocating for temperance in punishment.
What is the effect of mitigating factors?
The most tangible effect of successful mitigation is a reduction in the Sentence imposed by the Court. This may be a shorter term of imprisonment, a lower fine, or the substitution of a custodial sentence with community-based alternatives such as probation or community service depending on whether the offence for which you are convicted qualifies for a community-based alternative The extent of reduction varies considerably depending on the strength and number of mitigating factors present.
Categories and Examples of Mitigating Factors
Personal Characteristics and Circumstances
- Age: Youth is one of the most consistently recognised mitigating factors. Young offenders are viewed as possessing greater potential for rehabilitation and being less fixed in criminal patterns. On the other end of the spectrum, offenders who are elderly may also be given consideration where lengthy sentences would amount to a disproportionate burden given their reduced life expectancy.
- Mental conditions: Mental illness, intellectual disability, or cognitive impairment at the time of offending can significantly reduce moral culpability, provided that the mental condition is linked to the commission of the offence and does not amount to a valid defence at law. Courts recognise that such conditions may impair an individual’s ability to understand consequences or wrongfulness, or control impulses. The mitigating weight depends on the severity of the condition and the degree to which the condition contributed to and caused the offender’s criminal behaviour.
- Character and background: Prior good character, evidenced through community contributions, charitable work, or a clean criminal record, demonstrates that the offending behaviour is out of character, rather than a pattern. Courts may also consider disadvantaged backgrounds, including childhood trauma or socioeconomic deprivation, as providing context for criminal behaviour without excusing it.
Conduct-related mitigation
- Remorse: Genuine remorse, which is from mere regret because of being caught, indicates moral awareness and the offender’s potential for rehabilitation. If the offender had offered spontaneous apologies, attempted to assist victims, cooperated with authorities, and exhibited behavioural changes following arrest, the Courts may take these as indicators of the offender’s genuine remorse. The timing and manner of expressing remorse significantly influences its mitigating value – an immediate apology and an offer of compensation to a victim is more likely to be taken as an indication of genuine remorse than an offer of compensation made just before the offender is to be sentenced.
- Early guilty pleas: Indicating a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, spares victims the trauma of testimony, conserves judicial resources, and facilitates case resolution. The timing of the plea affects its mitigating weight, with earlier pleas receiving greater mitigating weight. In particular, based on the Guideline for Reduction in Sentencing for Guilty Pleas, an offender who pleads guilty within the first stage of the plead guilty timeline may be given up to a 30% discount in sentencing.
- Cooperation with authorities: Assisting authorities through providing information, testifying against co-offenders, or helping recover stolen property demonstrates a commitment to rectifying harm caused. The Courts recognise that such cooperation may expose the offender to personal risk, which adds to its mitigating value.
Offence-specific circumstances
- Role in joint enterprises: In cases involving multiple offenders, the specific role played by each participant becomes crucial. Those who played peripheral, non-violent, or reluctant roles typically receive more favourable treatment than primary instigators or leaders.
- Spontaneous vs planned conduct: Crimes committed impulsively or in response to unexpected circumstances typically attract less severe punishment than premeditated offences, reflecting reduced culpability associated with acting without deliberation.
Limitations of mitigating factors
While mitigating factors serve important functions in achieving proportionate sentences, this does not mean that the Courts will offer unlimited leniency. Certain serious offences may be subject to minimum sentencing requirements that limit judicial discretion regardless of whether mitigating factors are present. Additionally, in cases involving significant harm or repeated offending, the weight of aggravating factors may overwhelm mitigating factors.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.