1-20 of 186 results for legtitle:"Sentencing Act 2020"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.244 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- legtitle:"Sentencing Act 2020"
- We searched for
- legislationTitle_t:"Sentencing Act 2020" OR legislationTitle_ses:472961
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
An e-petition calling for legislation to prevent sentence reductions for late guilty pleas in cases of coercive control is being debated in Westminster Hall on 19 October 2026. The debate will be opened by Irene Campbell MP.
An e-petition calling for legislation to prevent sentence reductions for late guilty pleas in cases of coercive control is being debated in Westminster Hall on 19 October 2026. The debate will be opened by Irene Campbell MP.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the use of terrorist connection provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where no terrorism offence has been (a) charged and (b) proven before a jury on...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the use of terrorist connection provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where no terrorism offence has been (a) charged and (b) proven before a jury on...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many defendants have been subject to terrorism-connection sentencing provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where (a) no terrorism offence was charged and (b) no terrorism offence was proven before a jury, in each of the last...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many defendants have been subject to terrorism-connection sentencing provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where (a) no terrorism offence was charged and (b) no terrorism offence was proven before a jury, in each of the last...
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts. In England and Wales, the terrorist connection aggravating factor applies where an offence is not itself a terrorism offence but takes place in the course of an act of terrorism or is committed for the purposes of terrorism, as defined at section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The determination of such an aggravating factor is a matter for the sentencing judge, not the jury. The existence of aggravating factors is a well-established principle in sentencing and their application does not prejudice the fairness of a trial.
Parliament has provided courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so.
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for sentencing policy, and the Secretary of State for Justice receives advice on such matters as appropriate. The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of sentences aggravated by a terrorism connection under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has received advice on the use of terrorism-connection sentencing provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where no terrorism offence was charged or proven before a jury.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has received advice on the use of terrorism-connection sentencing provisions under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in cases where no terrorism offence was charged or proven before a jury.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts. In England and Wales, the terrorist connection aggravating factor applies where an offence is not itself a terrorism offence but takes place in the course of an act of terrorism or is committed for the purposes of terrorism, as defined at section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The determination of such an aggravating factor is a matter for the sentencing judge, not the jury. The existence of aggravating factors is a well-established principle in sentencing and their application does not prejudice the fairness of a trial.
Parliament has provided courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so.
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for sentencing policy, and the Secretary of State for Justice receives advice on such matters as appropriate. The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of sentences aggravated by a terrorism connection under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
New clause 3, discussed with new clauses 4, 5, 13, 17, 22, 32, and 33. New clause 3 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 4 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 5 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 6 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 7 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 8, discussed with new clauses 9, 10, and 30. New clause 8 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 9 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 10 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 11, discussed with new clause 27, negatived on division (5 votes to 8). New clause 12 debated and withdrawn. New clause 13 negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 17 negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 18, discussed with new clause 24, negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 21 debated and withdrawn. New clause 22 negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 23 negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 24 negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 25 negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 26 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 29 negatived on division (5 votes to 8). New clause 30 negatived on division (6 votes to 9). New clause 35 negatived on division (4 votes to 9). Clauses 21 to 27 agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported (Bill 422). Committee rose. Written evidence reported to the House.
New clause 3, discussed with new clauses 4, 5, 13, 17, 22, 32, and 33. New clause 3 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 4 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 5 negatived on division (5 votes to 9). New clause 6 negatived on...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of amending the Sentencing Act 2020 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of amending the Sentencing Act 2020 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes.
The Government has no current plans to extend the Sentencing Act 2020 to include sex as an aggravating factor in the enhanced sentencing regime.
However, an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill has added sex to the list of protected characteristics under the aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. When this provision has been implemented – offences listed in the Act motivated by hostility against someone’s sex or presumed sex can be charged as an aggravated offence and the courts will be able to impose a longer sentence on conviction beyond those provided for in the Sentencing Act 2020.
Lords motions to approve. Agreed to on question.
Lords motions to approve. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
My Lords, in December last year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made a Written Statement to the House announcing the Government’s plan to implement two outstanding recommendations made in the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which was undertaken by Clare Wade KC.
In opposition, we welcomed this review and its approach...
My Lords, in December last year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made a Written Statement to the House announcing the Government’s plan to implement two outstanding recommendations made in the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which was undertaken by Clare Wade KC.
In opposition, we welcomed this review and its approach...
My Lords, it is perhaps ironic that the first statutory instrument we considered was designed to relieve the pressure on the prison population, but these measures are calculated to increase the prison population. They will add to the list of aggravating features that a judge will have to take into...
My Lords, it is perhaps ironic that the first statutory instrument we considered was designed to relieve the pressure on the prison population, but these measures are calculated to increase the prison population. They will add to the list of aggravating features that a judge will have to take into...
My Lords, in considering this instrument, I once again express our gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he set out the justification for the instrument and its background, particularly the fact that the Law Commission review will take some time to happen. I thank the noble and...
My Lords, in considering this instrument, I once again express our gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he set out the justification for the instrument and its background, particularly the fact that the Law Commission review will take some time to happen. I thank the noble and...
My Lords, this statutory instrument amends Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. These regulations implement key recommendations from the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review led by Clare Wade KC and mark an important step forward in how our legal system treats cases of murder that involve domestic abuse. They are...
My Lords, this statutory instrument amends Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. These regulations implement key recommendations from the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review led by Clare Wade KC and mark an important step forward in how our legal system treats cases of murder that involve domestic abuse. They are...
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I hope that noble and noble and learned Lords will appreciate that, due to some personnel changes in the department over the last couple of days, I may not be as familiar with or as expert on this as...
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I hope that noble and noble and learned Lords will appreciate that, due to some personnel changes in the department over the last couple of days, I may not be as familiar with or as expert on this as...
Motion, That the draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 26 June, be approved. Agreed to on question.
Motion, That the draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 26 June, be approved. Agreed to on question.
Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.