Publishing sentencing remarks of all Crown court cases would be hugely problematic, the chair of the Sentencing Council has told MPs.

The government-commissioned Lammy Review called in 2017 for all sentencing remarks in the Crown court to be published in audio or written form to build trust and make the justice system more transparent and comprehensible.

However, Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council, told the House of Commons justice select committee yesterday that publishing all remarks created huge logistical problems.

The committee heard that 70,000 cases were sentenced in the Crown court last year and judges were sentencing up to a dozen cases every day.

‘The practical prospect of getting a written set of sentencing remarks in every case is hugely problematic. I’m not saying it’s not a good thing. David Lammy said it certainly was, because it informs those involved in the case and those outside,’ Lord Justice Davis said.

‘When I sat in the Crown court in any case of any substance where I was delivering remarks I had prepared and adjusted depending on what happened during the hearing, I would publish them in the sense that I would provide them to the local news outlet and to those in the case, and that’s something that’s done with reasonable regularity by Crown court judges.’

‘But you can’t realistically expect every single case to have written sentencing remarks because the logistics of it make it impossible,’ he added. ‘The judicial office, lord chief justice [do] encourage written sentencing remarks wherever possible, but we do have to, with great respect to David Lammy who I’ve met and respect, keep our feet on the ground as to what’s possible.’

Publishing sentencing remarks would make the Sentencing Council's job of monitoring sentences and assessing consistency easier, Lord Justice Davis said. The council commissions transcripts to find out what is happening in court. 'If we had sentencing remarks in every case we would have a huge resource that would be enormously beneficial. To that extent, the Sentencing Council would be very much in favour. But, as I say, we have to come back to practicality.'

 

This article is now closed for comment.