“Yesterday the Sentencing Council published proposals to spare drug dealers from jail. In future, it said, only those who are proved to be big-time dealers should go to jail. Drugs mules, runners and small-time dealers caught with up to 50 grammes of heroin or cocaine should instead be given community sentences,” Daily Express, 29 March 2011

“DRUG dealers carrying lethal amounts of heroin may be spared jail under new guidelines. A panel of top judges wants leniency for "small-time" dealers with less than 50g of the drug.” The Sun, 29 of March, 2011.
 

“Drug dealers could in future escape jail even if they sell up to £2,000 worth of heroin. New guidelines would allow courts to give community penalties to those playing a ‘subordinate’ role in a criminal gang. The ‘lower level’ offenders – such as drug runners – could keep their liberty even if arrested over the sale of up to 50 grams of heroin or cocaine or up to 100 tablets of ecstasy.” Daily Mail, 29 March 2011

New proposals for the sentencing of those convicted of drug-related crimes drew sharp criticism from sections of the press earlier this week.

The Sun, for instance declared that the members of the Sentencing Council were “off their heads” for the apparently lenient proposals whereby smaller-scale drug dealers would be spared jail.

But what did the Sentencing Council actually suggest?

Looking at their proposals themselves, page 10 of the consultation suggests that the range of sentences for those caught with a small amount (For example, 5g to 49.9g of cocaine) but playing a subordinate role in a drug dealing operation, ranges from community orders to over three years in jail.

The starting point though, which is moved down or up depending on circumstances, does include a custodial sentence.

So yes, it is theoretically possible to avoid jail if caught with a small amount of a Class A drug, as the papers reported. 

But how different is this to what currently happens?

The press release explains that the main change to the proposals is for tougher sentences for drug barons, rather than drug mules who may be coerced into acting. But beyond this it is claimed the consultation: “is intended to ensure that sentencing levels for the other offences remain broadly consistent with current practice.”

The resource assessment of the proposals also suggests the effects of the changes will be negligible: “Guideline sentencing ranges for these offences have been set with reference to data on current sentencing practice with the aim of having no effect on the average severity of sentencing.”

Perplexed, we contacted the sentencing council for an explanation of what they were proposing.

They gave us this statement: “The draft guideline we have produced broadly reflects current sentencing practice, but there are two areas in which we are proposing changes. 

“The first is in relation to drug mules. These are, in the main, women persuaded or coerced into couriering drugs into the UK with very little reward and with very little idea of the risks. To the drug barons, these are disposable people and they know that a large number will be caught. Those who are caught deserve substantial sentences, and we propose a starting point of 6.5 years custody, but our view is that at present, these sentences are set too high.

“The second area is the production of cannabis. The commercial cultivation of cannabis in the UK has been escalating for a number of years, so we are proposing to increase the length of the sentences available for those guilty of industrial scale production.

“In relation to supply offences, we aren’t proposing changes to current sentencing practice, so it cannot be said that sentences will become more lenient as a result of our proposals. We do not anticipate either more or fewer people being sent to prison for these offences.

"Regarding the factors of role and quantity, much of the coverage focused on the latter alone. Anyone selling drugs for profit would be classed as having a significant or leading role, regardless of quantity of drugs involved in the offence.”

Those selling drugs for a profit would thus not be included in the 'subordinate role' category and would not be in a position where community sentences could be considered.

So if so little is changing, why has the consultation been put forward?

A spokesperson for the Sentencing Council explained that the plan was to create greater consistency between crown and magistrates courts, as well as marking the first time statutory sentencing guidelines available for sentences in the Crown Court.

Conclusion

While not not inaccurate, the reporting in all of the papers can be considered somewhat misleading.

The Express is wrong to say that the Sentencing Council have proposed that only large scale dealers should go to jail, as the guidelines do state that the starting point for lower level dealers is still a custodial sentence.

The other papers correctly state there is the possibility of someone caught with a small amount of a class A drug on avoiding jail.

However no paper made the point that this does not appear to be much different from the sentencing currently in place.