{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00779423226812159, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006235385814497272, 'mean_word_length': 5.722513089005235, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sentencing Policy, Appellate Guidance and Protective Sentencing

This article analyses Court of Appeal guidance on the use of the protective sentencing provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It is argued that the Act's deserts principles have proved an illogical and inadequate basis for justifying protective sentences. The article examines the genesis of the provisions in the 1990 White Paper, recent case law concerning the scope of the provisions and concentrates particularly on developing the argument through an analysis of the Court of Appeal's approach to the determination of dangerousness within the parameters set by the legislation. This discussion pays particular attention to the balance required between the assessment of risk and harm and their interrelationship. The inconsistencies revealed are further explored by considering the provisions determining the length of protective sentences including the impact of sentence discounts and the deficiencies in parole provision. The article continues with an examination of possible alternative strategies and procedures and finally concludes that the future interpretation of the protective provisions represents a major challenge to the Court of Appeal in the future development of sentencing policy.