Discount by plea timing In 107 out of the 122 cases that received a youth justice centre order, the offender indicated the guilty plea during the committal stage. Therefore, the level of discount at each plea timing stage cannot be compared meaningfully, as the number of cases at the other plea timing stages is too small. Figure 18: Discount in length of youth justice centre order because of the guilty plea, higher court cases, 2009–10 to 2013–14 Type of discount % of proven cases Less than 10% (n = 0.0 10% to less than 20% (n = 3) 2.5 20% to less than 30% (n = 41) 33.6 30% to less than 40% (n = 44) 36.1 40% to less than 50% (n = 7.4 50% to less than 60% (n = 16) 13.1 60% or more (n = 6.6 Judge does not quantify discount (n = 1) 0.8 Eligible fines Percentage discount for guilty plea Figure 19 shows the discounts given for the guilty plea in cases in which the offender was sentenced to a fine above the prescribed amount (10 penalty units for individual fines or 20 penalty units for aggregate fines). There were 67 cases in which the 6AAA statement had sufficient information to calculate the discount given for the guilty plea. The majority of cases with a quantifiable discount for the guilty plea (40.3% of cases) had a discount in the 20–30% range. The range of discounts for guilty pleas in cases with fines was narrower than the range for imprisonment and youth justice centre orders, with no discounts of 60% or higher. The average (mean) plea-based reduction was 31.6%, while the median was 28.9%. In one case, the sentencing judge stated that but for the guilty plea, the fine would have remained the same but the accompanying custodial sentence would have been longer. In six cases, the judge stated the fine would have been much higher but for the guilty plea, without deciding on a final dollar amount.
Discount by plea timing In 107 out of the 122 cases that received a youth justice centre order, the offender indicated the guilty plea during the committal stage. Therefore, the level of discount at each plea timing stage cannot be compared meaningfully, as the number of cases at the other plea timing stages is too small. Figure 18: Discount in length of youth justice centre order because of the guilty plea, higher court cases, 2009–10 to 2013–14 Type of discount % of proven cases Less than 10% (n = 0.0 10% to less than 20% (n = 3) 2.5 20% to less than 30% (n = 41) 33.6 30% to less than 40% (n = 44) 36.1 40% to less than 50% (n = 7.4 50% to less than 60% (n = 16) 13.1 60% or more (n = 6.6 Judge does not quantify discount (n = 1) 0.8 Eligible fines Percentage discount for guilty plea Figure 19 shows the discounts given for the guilty plea in cases in which the offender was sentenced to a fine above the prescribed amount (10 penalty units for individual fines or 20 penalty units for aggregate fines). There were 67 cases in which the 6AAA statement had sufficient information to calculate the discount given for the guilty plea. The majority of cases with a quantifiable discount for the guilty plea (40.3% of cases) had a discount in the 20–30% range. The range of discounts for guilty pleas in cases with fines was narrower than the range for imprisonment and youth justice centre orders, with no discounts of 60% or higher. The average (mean) plea-based reduction was 31.6%, while the median was 28.9%. In one case, the sentencing judge stated that but for the guilty plea, the fine would have remained the same but the accompanying custodial sentence would have been longer. In six cases, the judge stated the fine would have been much higher but for the guilty plea, without deciding on a final dollar amount.
Guilty%20Pleas%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts.docx