The Sheriffs’ Association has submitted its response to the Scottish Government’s consultation document on Sentencing Guidelines and a Scottish Sentencing Council.

The Sheriffs criticise the very purpose of the consultation, claiming it is aimed at simply reducing the priosn population, rather than tackling incisistency in sentencing.

"The consultation document at paragraph 1.1, quotes the late Lord Macfadyen that, “a perception of inconsistency in sentencing is likely to lead to a loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system”. The consultation document leaps from that hypothesis to the conclusion expressed at paragraph 1.5, that because sentencing works on an individual case basis, supplemented by recognised sources relied upon by judges, the public do not understand the sentencing process, or the reasons behind decisions and states that,  “This has helped to create a common perception that sentencing in our courts is inconsistent which, consequently, has had a negative effect on confidence in the criminal justice system”. No evidence is produced to support these claims," they said.

"They are contradicted at paragraph 1.7 where it is recorded that particularly amongst practitioners the view is held that sentencing is not inconsistent but is dealt with on an individual basis. The Sentencing Commission found little empirical evidence to support the view that there was widespread inconsistency in sentencing in Scotland.

"The Sheriffs’ Association is concerned that, in the absence of any evidence to support the notion that there exists widespread inconsistency in sentencing which require guidelines to be introduced, the aim of this policy is more to do with Government concerns over a rising prison population and thereby to interfere with judicial independence by limiting the number of offences which merit a sentence of imprisonment."

In a statement, the Sheriffs Association said they would have expected that legislation to introduce a Sentencing Council would be evidence-based.

"The Sheriffs’ Association regard it as fundamental to the constitutional principle of judicial independence that sentencing remains a judicial function, and maintaining the role of the Appeal Court in overseeing that function would ensure the protection of judicial independence."

The Association’s response also contains comments on the use by the Scottish Government of recent changes in New Zealand as the model for new arrangements in Scotland. The Association questions the accuracy of the assertions about the similarity between New Zealand and Scotland.