In 1972, British courts were given the power to defer sentence. This study examines some of the effects of the use of this power. Data were obtained on 392 persons who received deferred sentences in West Yorkshire courts in 1977. Results show that burglary attracted a disproportionately high share of deferments, compared with the proportion of offenders convicted of that offense. This reflects a national trend, as does the finding that the offense of criminal damage had a disproportionately low share of deferment. The crown court also used deferment more often than might be expected for offenses of theft, although magistrates used it less often. The study revealed that 223 (56.9 percent) offenders completed the deferment period without reoffending. Regarding sentence received after the deferment period, noncustodial sentences on the main charge for which sentence had been deferred were received by 82 percent of adults and 86.4 percent of juveniles. The high proportion of social inquiry reports in this sample whose recommendations the courts did not follow suggests that deferment is commonly used when the court is confronted with a recommendation that is found unacceptable. Rather than go against the advice of the report, courts may choose to defer sentence as a compromise, which allows a period of time to assess the suitability of a particular recommendation. Findings also showed than almost half of the offenders whose sentences were deferred returned at the end of the deferment period to face a completely different bench. Tabular data and about 10 references are provided.