There has been a marked divergence between the executive and the judiciary regarding the direction of sentencing policy in recent years which has had adverse implications in the use of custodial sentences by the courts. The author contends that the continued divergence between judicial objectives and executive policymaking provides a significant obstacle to penal reform. He examines the interpretation of government legislation and initiatives by the Court of Appeal, Court of Appeal sentencing initiatives, and the impact of the Attorney General's reference procedure. The author suggests that the solution to the problem lies in the establishment of flexible national guidelines which have judicial and executive approval based on agreed sentencing objectives. The alternative appears to suggest an eventual constitutional crisis between the executive and the judiciary in matters of sentencing policy. Notes, references