The defendant had been convicted of causing the death of a close friend after driving dangerously, having consumed alcohol. The appeal court was supplied with statements from the mother and one of the sisters of the deceased who were seeking, indeed urging, clemency on the court, not merely because the sentence passed on the defendant was having a detrimental effect on him, but because it was adversely affecting their ability to come to terms with the loss and grief which they had suffered. As the mother made clear in her statement, her husband, the father of the deceased and his other sister, did not agree with them. In short, victims of precisely the same crime, with the same dreadful consequent emotional damage, took diametrically opposed views about the sentence.
Held: The court observed: ‘if the victim feels utterly merciful towards the criminal, and some do, the crime has still been committed and must be punished as it deserves. If the victim is obsessed with vengeance, which can in reality only be assuaged by a very long sentence, as also happens, the punishment cannot be made longer by the court than would otherwise be appropriate. Otherwise cases with identical features would be dealt with in widely differing ways, leading to improper and unfair disparity . . If carried to its logical conclusion, the process would end up by imposing unfair pressures on the victims of crime or the survivors of crime resulting in death, to play a part in the sentencing process which many of them would find painful and distasteful. It is very far removed from the court being kept properly informed of the anguish and suffering inflicted on the victims by the crime’.
Citations:
[1996] 2 Cr App R(S) 136
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.539563