skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 150237 Find in a Library
Title: Mode of Trial Decisions and Sentencing Differences Between Courts
Journal: Howard Journal of Criminal Justice  Volume:33  Issue:2  Dated:(May 1994)  Pages:97-108
Author(s): D Moxon; C Hedderman
Date Published: 1994
Page Count: 12
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: Records from five crown court centers and seven magistrates' courts in Great Britain were examined regarding who determined the mode of trial and the characteristics of offense, the offender, and the sentence.
Abstract: The research focused on the common offenses of theft, nonresidential burglary, assault causing injury, and wounding. The samples included 60 cases of each type at magistrates' courts and 100 at crown courts. Some of the defendants and their attorneys were also interviewed. The analysis revealed that although the crown court deals with about one-fifth of defendants charged with offenses that can be tried either way, a majority of those were sent to the crown court because magistrates decline jurisdiction. The analysis also indicated that many received much more severe sentences as a result of going to the crown court. Substantial differences were found in sentencing patterns of individual courts, but the biggest difference was between higher and lower courts. Many more and longer custodial sentences were imposed by crown courts than by magistrates' courts for similar offenses. Table, notes, and 12 references (Author abstract modified)
Main Term(s): Foreign courts
Index Term(s): England; Pretrial procedures; Wales
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.