More stalkers and sex offenders to be jailed for violating court orders under new sentencing rules
Judges will be able to consider an offender's risk of harm, rather than past incidents, for the first time
Sign up for the Independent Women email for the latest news, opinion and features
Get the Independent Women email for free
Get the Independent Women email for free
Sex offenders and stalkers are among the criminals who could be jailed more frequently for violating court orders, under new rules.
The Sentencing Council is handing judges and magistrates the first comprehensive guidance on punishing breaches of measures aiming at protecting victims, including restraining orders and sexual harm prevention orders (SHPOs).
For the most serious cases of breaching an SHPO, courts will be expected to impose a sentence of between two and four-and-a-half years, while the range for breaking restraining and non-molestation orders is one to four years.
Rules coming into effect across England and Wales on 1 October also aim to ensure offenders serving suspended sentences will be sent to prison if they breach the conditions of their release, unless there are “new and exceptional circumstances”.
The approach seeks to tighten up the handling of cases of non-compliance with court orders after the Sentencing Council identified some breaches were attracting penalties well below the maximum allowed by law.
Judges will decide how harshly to punish violations based on the offender’s motivations, the seriousness of the breach and either actual harm or the risk of it being caused.
“Including a focus on risk of harm for such breaches helps ensure appropriate sentences are imposed where a breach presents a serious risk of harm to the public, without any actual harm needing to have occurred,” the Sentencing Council said.
“This could include for example, a sex offender who fails to comply with notification requirements with the intention of evading detection in order to commit further offences.”
The court orders covered include post-sentence supervision, failing to surrender to bail, protective orders, anti-social behaviour orders, notification requirements and disqualifications from keeping animals.
The change came after high-profile cases involving ex-offenders who murdered victims after being released from prison under licence conditions.
Stephen Unwin and William McFall had already been jailed for unrelated murders and freed when they killed Vietnamese mother Quyen Ngoc Nguyen in Sunderland last year.
They were given whole life terms after subjecting her to four hours of “unimaginable” torture and rape before burning her alive in a car.
Police had failed to arrest the pair for running a violent criminal enterprise stealing highly valuable cannabis crops.
The monitoring of released offenders was thrown into the spotlight again when Theodore Johnson was jailed for murdering his third partner, having been jailed and released twice for killing two other women.
Sentencing Council member Julian Goose said court orders were there to protect individuals and the wider public from particular types of criminal behaviour.
“Making sure that offenders comply with court orders is crucial in reinforcing public confidence in sentencing,” he added.
“Where offenders do not comply, the public have a right to expect that this is properly addressed by the courts.
“We are giving courts clear guidance on what action should be taken against those offenders who ignore court orders so that they are dealt with robustly and consistently.”
Sentencing guidelines must be followed, unless a judge or magistrate feels it is “not in the interests of justice to do so”.
The Sentencing Council acknowledged the new guidelines could cause the number of prisoners to increase, amid record levels of violence and self-harm in Britain’s crisis-hit jails.
Justice minister Rory Stewart said: “For the justice system to work, we need both a good prison system and good community sentences – that means we have to ensure that offenders comply with the court orders, and that if they don’t, they will face clear consequences.
“This is vital to build public and judicial confidence in community orders – which if properly enforced can reduce reoffending and protect the public.”