The Likelihood of Early Guilty Pleas Following Digitally Recorded Victim Statements for Family Violence

This study follows 4715 Family Harm cases for which charges are laid (from around 15,000 events from 2018–2020). Comparisons are made between cases where a digitally recorded victim video statement (VVS) is taken to those who (1) make a written statement, (2) refuse to make any statement and (3) present at the public counter and make a written statement. Findings indicate that VVS increases the rates of an early guilty plea by 95% (OR = 1.95, LCL = 1.34, UCL = 2.7) compared to those who decline a VVS and have a written statement. No difference is observed for those presenting to report an event at a public counter. A more modest effect is observed comparing those who refuse a statement altogether (OR = 1.28, LCL = 1.03, UCL = 1.60). A VVS is nearly twice as likely to lead to an early guilty plea. It is reasoned that there is a poor rate of guilty pleas for written statements, rather than an elevation in rates for VVS. Age and gender are unrelated to the elevated rate of pleading guilty to a VVS. Event seriousness is inversely related to pleading guilty, whereas having many prior convictions or being remanded increases the likelihood of the guilty plea.

Sentence reductions for a guilty plea: The impact of the revised guideline on rates of pleas and ‘cracked trials’

In 2017, the Sentencing Council introduced a revised guideline for plea-based sentence reductions. The revisions were designed to provide greater certainty and to accelerate the timing of guilty pleas. Late pleas resulting in ‘cracked trials’ have long been a problem in the court system. The guideline was not intended to change the rate of defendants who plead guilty, but rather to increase the percentage of pleas entered early in the criminal process. This brief article reports findings from an analysis of data from the Crown Court before and after the introduction of the revised sentencing guideline. Findings reveal that the overall guilty plea remained stable over the period 2014–2019. The guideline appears to have had no effect on the timing of guilty pleas entered, and in fact the percentage of ‘cracked’ trials rose in the post-guideline period.

22. Specific Types of Sentence and the Plea in Mitigation

This chapter explains specific types of sentence and provide guidance on how a defence solicitor might prepare and deliver a plea in mitigation. It discusses when discretionary custodial sentence can be imposed; custody between the ages 18 and 21; length of custodial sentence; suspended sentence of imprisonment; concluding remarks on discretionary custodial sentences; fixed length sentences; sentencing dangerous offenders; community sentences; community sentences under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; guilty plea credit and community orders; enforcement of community orders under the CJA 2003 in the event of breach; deferring sentence; fines; compensation orders; conditional discharge; absolute discharge; bind over; ancillary orders; structuring a plea in mitigation; advocacy and the plea in mitigation; and professional conduct.

12. Prosecuting Summary Offences

A summary trial will be held where a defendant pleads not guilty to a summary-only offence or pleads not guilty to an either-way offence where the magistrates’ court has accepted jurisdiction to try the offence at the allocation hearing and the defendant has consented to summary trial. This chapter deals with the steps in preparing for a summary trial. It considers pleading guilty by post; the circumstances in which a defendant can be summarily tried in her absence; the rules governing the drafting of a written charge/information; the pre-trial disclosure of evidence in a summary case; case management; the steps when preparing for summary trial; and the procedure at a summary trial on a not guilty plea.

A STUDY ON THE GRADE SYSTEM OF PLEADING GUILTY AND ACCEPTING PUNISHMENT—FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY

The right of remorse is not only the voluntary guarantee of the case of pleading guilty and accepting punishment, but also the source of the accused’s appeal. Protest is a confrontation between the right of remorse and the court of first instance’s failure to adopt the sentencing recommendation of the prosecution, and this confrontational contradiction always exists, which stems from the failure to put the characteristics of guilty plea and punishment admitting into the second instance procedure. Standardizing the right of remorse, establishing the system of cause appeal, classifying the reasons for protest and adjusting the scope of the second trial are helpful to resolve the conflicts in the system of admitting punishment and adjudication, and use intersubjectivity to break through the tension between litigation justice and litigation efficiency.

Advocacy and the Innocent Client

Much of our knowledge about wrongful convictions is derived from known exonerations, which typically involve serious violent offences and lengthy sentences. These represent only a small proportion of offences prosecuted in Canada each year, and little is known about how often innocent defendants may be wrongfully convicted of less serious offences. Recent discussions have begun to focus on the problem of false guilty pleas, in which defendants choose to plead guilty to a lesser offence to avoid the time and cost required to defend their innocence. The majority of our knowledge of the factors contributing to wrongful convictions is based on American scholarship, with less empirical research exploring wrongful convictions within the Canadian context. The present research surveyed Canadian criminal defence lawyers about their experiences representing innocent clients, including their perspective on the underlying causes of wrongful convictions in Canada and their recommendations for reform to the criminal justice system. Nearly two-thirds of defence counsel in this study reported that they had represented at least one client who was convicted despite credible claims of innocence. Many reported that they regularly see innocent clients choose to enter a strategic false guilty plea, perceiving no meaningful or realistic alternative. Counsel described a system designed to elicit a guilty plea, with lengthy pre-trial delays, routine denial of bail, inadequate funding of Legal Aid, costly defence options, padded charges, and false evidence ploys. This research expands our knowledge of wrongful convictions in Canada, their hidden prevalence, and systemic problems that increase the likelihood of their occurrence.

Take the plea: the factors that influence innocent individuals to accept plea bargains

Recently, plea bargaining has emerged as a factor that contributes to wrongful convictions. When a Crown offers a reduced sentence or lesser charge to a defendant in exchange for a guilty plea, there is the potential for innocent defendants to plead guilty. However, little is known about the factors that are influencing innocent defendants to accept plea bargains. The current study aimed to investigate the role of false evidence, risk, and modality on an innocent participant’s likelihood of accepting or rejecting a plea bargain. In a laboratory, innocent participants (N = 174) were accused of collaborating with another participant (confederate) on a problem solving task, and offered a plea bargain. Results showed that when participants were told there was an 80% chance of sanctions if they rejected the plea, they were more likely to admit guilt, and accept the plea. Additionally, participants who were high in compliance, high in fantasy proneness, or were younger, were more likely to accept the plea bargain. Implications of these findings for innocent defendants are discussed.

Take the plea: the factors that influence innocent individuals to accept plea bargains

Recently, plea bargaining has emerged as a factor that contributes to wrongful convictions. When a Crown offers a reduced sentence or lesser charge to a defendant in exchange for a guilty plea, there is the potential for innocent defendants to plead guilty. However, little is known about the factors that are influencing innocent defendants to accept plea bargains. The current study aimed to investigate the role of false evidence, risk, and modality on an innocent participant’s likelihood of accepting or rejecting a plea bargain. In a laboratory, innocent participants (N = 174) were accused of collaborating with another participant (confederate) on a problem solving task, and offered a plea bargain. Results showed that when participants were told there was an 80% chance of sanctions if they rejected the plea, they were more likely to admit guilt, and accept the plea. Additionally, participants who were high in compliance, high in fantasy proneness, or were younger, were more likely to accept the plea bargain. Implications of these findings for innocent defendants are discussed.