Is ‘Plea-Bargaining’ the Way Forward in the Criminal Justice System of England and Wales?
Historically, ‘plea bargaining’ has been understood as an agreement between the prosecution and defence counsels which ultimately results in the defendant being in a position to receive a judgment which is less severe, if he or she changes his plea from ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty’. There is also the possibility that the accused might accept a lesser charge in return for a guilty plea, as opposed to the original higher charge that the accused is initially charged with; this is more commonly known as ‘charge bargaining.’
Through these particular settlements, both parties come to achieve a valuable compromise, which is a great advantage to all concerned parties. Coming to an agreement prevents opposing counsels having to deal with extra work and particularly for the prosecution who have gained a guilty plea in return for a more lenient sentence for the defence council. In addition, this mutual compromise is very significant as it saves a lot of money for both the defendant and the State. According to Home Office statistics, the cost for a contested trial in the Crown Court was an estimated £12,088, compared to a significantly inexpensive cost of about £1,400 for cases with a guilty plea . It is no surprise then that the lower costs also attract shorter times; 9.5 hours and 80 minutes respectively clearly help to speed up the overcrowded court system of England and Wales. Plea bargaining is not a new concept to the law and has been present in legal systems across the world for several centuries, however, there has not been any substantial research upon this topic until recently. This research has suggested that some form of plea-bargaining was present as early as the 1880s, albeit in the USA. Similarly, here in England & Wales ‘plea-bargaining’ has seen incredible growth over the last hundred years, leading to the decline in employing a jury to settle a trial. Instead, as seen in America, ‘plea-bargaining’ has grown and is now the leading method of trial
Through these particular settlements, both parties come to achieve a valuable compromise, which is a great advantage to all concerned parties. Coming to an agreement prevents opposing counsels having to deal with extra work and particularly for the prosecution who have gained a guilty plea in return for a more lenient sentence for the defence council. In addition, this mutual compromise is very significant as it saves a lot of money for both the defendant and the State. According to Home Office statistics, the cost for a contested trial in the Crown Court was an estimated £12,088, compared to a significantly inexpensive cost of about £1,400 for cases with a guilty plea . It is no surprise then that the lower costs also attract shorter times; 9.5 hours and 80 minutes respectively clearly help to speed up the overcrowded court system of England and Wales. Plea bargaining is not a new concept to the law and has been present in legal systems across the world for several centuries, however, there has not been any substantial research upon this topic until recently. This research has suggested that some form of plea-bargaining was present as early as the 1880s, albeit in the USA. Similarly, here in England & Wales ‘plea-bargaining’ has seen incredible growth over the last hundred years, leading to the decline in employing a jury to settle a trial. Instead, as seen in America, ‘plea-bargaining’ has grown and is now the leading method of trial
Bibliography: • Elizabeth A. Martin, Dictionary of Law Oxford University Press; (6Rev ed. 2003) • A • Ashworth A, The Criminal Process (2nd ed. 1998) pg 269 Websites: -