Outline the powers of the courts in sentencing offenders using one example of a summary offence
and one indictable offence
In outlining the powers that the courts have in sentencing offenders it’s important to understand the
different courts and that each different court has different powers and to different scales, some
having very little ability to sentence and only able to give out very small sentences, whereas others
have near unlimited power in terms of sentencing offenders. It will be necessary to briefly touch
upon the differences of summary offences and indictable ones before they can used as an example in
the context of exploring the differences in the sentencing powers available to the courts.
The limitations that the various courts have visited upon them in terms of their ability to sentence
individuals include the differences between magistrate’s courts powers and those of a crown court.
Technically speaking there is no actual limitation on the sentences that a crown court can give to an
individual, of course this is only sentences used in Britain, though the crown court can delegate to
other courts some higher in favour of better sentencing, as while there is no official limitation of
their sentencing powers, crimes of high magnitudes are often needing a sentence so high that it
needs to be given by a higher court. Of course for the majority of cases it will not need to be referred
up to another court, however the highest ever fine that the crown court has ever given is £10million
but cases they have heard that were referred up to another court have reached £500million. The
differences in a magistrate’s court are huge. They are limited and only expected to deal with minor
offences, more serious offences being taken to crown court instead. A magistrate can give a
maximum sentence of 12 months imprisonment for a single offence, previously 6 it was increased to
12 by the criminal justice act 2003.They can also give a maximum fine of £5000.
It should be noted then that there exists courts above the crown court that technically have no more
power than the crown perhaps with a few exceptions who poses law making powers. These courts
include mentioning of few, the court of appeals, and court of high justice and European commission
of justice. These courts as I have already mentioned hold no more power technically than a crown
court but in practicality some crimes have a magnitude so high they require a sentencing by a higher
court in a similar scale to their crimes. In practically a crown court is unlikely to exceed a fine of
£10million ever, whereas some of these other courts truly have no limits technically or in practically
as to what they give as a sentence to the offender for the crime/crimes perpetrated. The reasoning
behind this would be that crimes need to be punished on the same scale they were committed on,
hence why the most serious crimes will always receive the worst punishment/sentence possible by a
court and hopefully by the highest court possible.
A summary offence is mostly a minor offence and one that would be usually held in a magistrate’s
court. In an example of a summary offence being sentenced an offender sentenced of theft by a
magistrates court would receive a fine most likely and only a prison sentence if the court decided the
value of the goods stolen or method used to steal them wanted such a sentence. An indictable
offence is often very serious and so is likely to be heard in a crown court an example of an indictable
offence being sentenced, an offender sentenced of murder is likely to receive life in prison, with only
exceptional circumstances reducing the sentence that they would receive.
In conclusion each court has different powers, this relates to the level of offences they are dealing
with. Whilst some courts do have unlimited power in sentencing realistically they will forward the
case to a higher court in favour of a more appropriate sentencing of the offender.
and one indictable offence
In outlining the powers that the courts have in sentencing offenders it’s important to understand the
different courts and that each different court has different powers and to different scales, some
having very little ability to sentence and only able to give out very small sentences, whereas others
have near unlimited power in terms of sentencing offenders. It will be necessary to briefly touch
upon the differences of summary offences and indictable ones before they can used as an example in
the context of exploring the differences in the sentencing powers available to the courts.
The limitations that the various courts have visited upon them in terms of their ability to sentence
individuals include the differences between magistrate’s courts powers and those of a crown court.
Technically speaking there is no actual limitation on the sentences that a crown court can give to an
individual, of course this is only sentences used in Britain, though the crown court can delegate to
other courts some higher in favour of better sentencing, as while there is no official limitation of
their sentencing powers, crimes of high magnitudes are often needing a sentence so high that it
needs to be given by a higher court. Of course for the majority of cases it will not need to be referred
up to another court, however the highest ever fine that the crown court has ever given is £10million
but cases they have heard that were referred up to another court have reached £500million. The
differences in a magistrate’s court are huge. They are limited and only expected to deal with minor
offences, more serious offences being taken to crown court instead. A magistrate can give a
maximum sentence of 12 months imprisonment for a single offence, previously 6 it was increased to
12 by the criminal justice act 2003.They can also give a maximum fine of £5000.
It should be noted then that there exists courts above the crown court that technically have no more
power than the crown perhaps with a few exceptions who poses law making powers. These courts
include mentioning of few, the court of appeals, and court of high justice and European commission
of justice. These courts as I have already mentioned hold no more power technically than a crown
court but in practicality some crimes have a magnitude so high they require a sentencing by a higher
court in a similar scale to their crimes. In practically a crown court is unlikely to exceed a fine of
£10million ever, whereas some of these other courts truly have no limits technically or in practically
as to what they give as a sentence to the offender for the crime/crimes perpetrated. The reasoning
behind this would be that crimes need to be punished on the same scale they were committed on,
hence why the most serious crimes will always receive the worst punishment/sentence possible by a
court and hopefully by the highest court possible.
A summary offence is mostly a minor offence and one that would be usually held in a magistrate’s
court. In an example of a summary offence being sentenced an offender sentenced of theft by a
magistrates court would receive a fine most likely and only a prison sentence if the court decided the
value of the goods stolen or method used to steal them wanted such a sentence. An indictable
offence is often very serious and so is likely to be heard in a crown court an example of an indictable
offence being sentenced, an offender sentenced of murder is likely to receive life in prison, with only
exceptional circumstances reducing the sentence that they would receive.
In conclusion each court has different powers, this relates to the level of offences they are dealing
with. Whilst some courts do have unlimited power in sentencing realistically they will forward the
case to a higher court in favour of a more appropriate sentencing of the offender.
