denied the offender the opportunity of receiving a youth justice centre order (the offender could have been sentenced prior to turning 21 years old). Given the guideline judgment and the Court of Appeal’s subsequent refinement and application of the guideline judgment’s principles, there are two possible effects on sentencing outcomes. First, the CCO is likely to be used in some cases that would have previously received imprisonment, and second, the CCO is likely to be used more frequently in combination with imprisonment, in order to balance the need for specific and general deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation, with the desire to promote the offender’s rehabilitation. Measuring the changes in the relative use of sanctions resulting from the CCO’s introduction is complicated by the many changes to the sentencing landscape that affect CCO use. These include the abolition of suspended sentences and directions by legislation that CCOs be used instead, changes to the likelihood of offenders being granted parole, the increase in the maximum term of imprisonment with which a CCO may be combined, and the impact of the guideline judgment. Research questions This report addresses five questions. The three questions seek descriptive answers: Was there a change in the number and type of CCOs imposed in 2015 compared with previous years? Was there a change in the offence profile, offender demographics, or the duration or conditions of CCOs imposed as principal sentences in 2015 compared with previous years? How do the offence profile, offender demographics, and the duration and conditions of CCOs imposed in combination with imprisonment differ from those of CCOs imposed as a principal sentence? The final two questions seek explanations for the changes described in question 1: Which factors contributed to a change in the numbers of CCOs imposed as principal sentences in 2015 compared with previous years?
denied the offender the opportunity of receiving a youth justice centre order (the offender could have been sentenced prior to turning 21 years old). Given the guideline judgment and the Court of Appeal’s subsequent refinement and application of the guideline judgment’s principles, there are two possible effects on sentencing outcomes. First, the CCO is likely to be used in some cases that would have previously received imprisonment, and second, the CCO is likely to be used more frequently in combination with imprisonment, in order to balance the need for specific and general deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation, with the desire to promote the offender’s rehabilitation. Measuring the changes in the relative use of sanctions resulting from the CCO’s introduction is complicated by the many changes to the sentencing landscape that affect CCO use. These include the abolition of suspended sentences and directions by legislation that CCOs be used instead, changes to the likelihood of offenders being granted parole, the increase in the maximum term of imprisonment with which a CCO may be combined, and the impact of the guideline judgment. Research questions This report addresses five questions. The three questions seek descriptive answers: Was there a change in the number and type of CCOs imposed in 2015 compared with previous years? Was there a change in the offence profile, offender demographics, or the duration or conditions of CCOs imposed as principal sentences in 2015 compared with previous years? How do the offence profile, offender demographics, and the duration and conditions of CCOs imposed in combination with imprisonment differ from those of CCOs imposed as a principal sentence? The final two questions seek explanations for the changes described in question 1: Which factors contributed to a change in the numbers of CCOs imposed as principal sentences in 2015 compared with previous years?