At present, the CPS can get a "result" by geting the accused to plead guilty at an early opportunity, this carries with it the attraction of up to 30% discount for a guilty plea.

Now I can understand the savings made by getting a guilty plea…no trial, no jury, no need for victims to give evidence but surely it's a double helping for the accused to also get the charge reduced to something lesser than he/she was originally  charged.

Furthermore this rule is universal, irrespective of the charge. It might be appropriate to offer this to the defendant if the evidence might not convince a magistrate or jury, perhaps in less serious offences, but surely it's absurd to offer it in serious cases, just to get a conviction without effort.

So my idea is, no reduction in charge for a guilty plea OR up to 30% discount on the original charge if defendant is prepared to plead guilty for less serious offences in the magistrates but no option for serious offences.

Why is this idea important?

Because it seems to me that defendants who are obviously guilty on the evidence get too good a deal and should not be able to negotiate their way out of the right sentence.

OK, the presumption of innocence is extremely valuable and must be retained, but this presumption has evolved from a state of fairly basic evidence and seems to ignore the  fact that much more reliable evidence is now available, whilst not conclusive in itself it nevertheless demonstrates a strong case

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.