Magistrates in the West Midlands jailed nearly 3,000 people last year - with courts in the area twice as likely to send people to prison
than elsewhere in the country.
In 2017, magistrates’ courts in the West Midlands police force area jailed 2,947 people, or 7.5% of all those convicted.
This meant criminals in the area were two times more likely to be sent to jail than in England and Wales as a whole - where 3.8% of those
convicted are jailed.
Prison reform campaigners said evidence shows short bursts of imprisonment lead to more offending and more victims, so alarm bells
rang when some courts are jailing people more frequently than others.
Among those given custodial sentences last year were eight offenders aged between 12 and 14, and 94 who were aged between 15 and 17,
according to the figures published by the Ministry of Justice.
For those jailed, the most common type of offence committed were theft offences, which led to 1,263 people being jailed in the West Midlands
in 2017.
As well as being more likely to jail people overall, magistrates in the West Midlands were 1.5 times more likely to send people to prison for criminal damage and arson - jailing 18% of those convicted, compared to 12% across England.
Courts in the West Midlands were also more likely to jail people for violence against the person (sending 329.6% of offenders to jail compared to 24.8% across England and Wales), sexual offences (19.7% against 15.9%), and public order offences (26.7% against 23.2%).
Magistrates’ courts can sentence people for up to six months in prison (or up to 12 months in total for more than one offence).
Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “When magistrates send someone to prison, they are
making a choice that can have disastrous consequences. Alarm bells start to ring when some courts make that decision much more frequently
than courts located in other parts of the country.
“Short prison sentences are a catastrophe for everyone. As the government has recognised in recent ministerial announcements, the evidence shows that short bursts of imprisonment lead to more offending and more victims.
“When sentencing practices vary so significantly from region to region, it only strengthens the argument for removing from magistrates the power to sentence people to prison – and to look instead at redirecting their responsibilities to helping people to lead crime-free lives.”
A study carried out in 2007 for the Ministry of Justice showed significant variations in local sentencing across England and Wales.
In 2006 - the year the study looked at - the proportion of offenders jailed by magistrates varied from 6% to 16% The range in 2017 was 1% to 9%, suggesting that local variations have persisted.
The study found differences in sentencing could not be explained solely by the characteristics of the cases or offenders coming before the courts, and whilst these factors could contribute to sentencing variations, they did not fully account for them.
It suggested variations in sentencing may be the result of ‘local justice' or the ‘human factor’, defined as the need to establish and maintain consistent policy in individual courts, which may have taken priority over maintaining consistency at a national level.
Another factor may have been the relationship between sentencers and other agencies such as the police and probation service. Since 1998, there have been moves to create more consistent sentencing guidelines, which led to the creation of the Sentencing Council in 2010.
Previously what guidance was available had been based on Court of Appeal judgements and was limited to only a small proportion of offences.
The Sentencing Council has developed guidelines covering most of the significant offences sentenced in the magistrates’ court and for a wide range of offences in the Crown Court.
The aim of the guidelines is to ensure consistency between sentencing decisions across courts. They provide guidance on factors the court should take into account, such as harm caused to the victim and how blameworthy the offender is.
Most of the guidelines give a range of possible sentences depending on the relevant factors considered. However, judges and magistrates still
have discretion to go outside the guidelines.
