To What Extent Might the Sentencing Process in the Crown Court be able to Moderate Penal Excess

: A Comparative Mixed Methods Study of the Sentencing Policies and Practices in England & Wales and Norway

Abstract

This project employs the concept of penal excess to comparatively examine whether rising custodial sentences for violent and drug offences have reached excessive levels and if so, how the sentencing process may moderate such trends. As an exemplar of penal exceptionalism, Norway was selected as a comparator. The project adopts a critical realist perspective and a mixed methods approach in thematically and reflexively analysing sentencing data, vignettes and in-depth interviews with a novel range of academic and practitioner experts to give the
concept meaning, measurability and investigate its existence, causes and consequences within the sentencing process.
In generating causative knowledge, the findings provide a deeper understanding of penal excess by exploring two inter-linked meanings: more broadly, of a state adopting too punitive an approach to criminal justice and more narrowly, of sentences being imposed which are
disproportionately severe. Two metrics, relative historical and purpose proportionality were applied to measure the more attenuated interpretation of excess.
Evidence was found of politically and judicially led excessive rises in sentencing levels in England. Higher rises in Norway for offences of violence were found alongside a more recent judicial-led deflationary approach in respect of drugs. The impact of overcrowded prisons on penal weight was identified as a key factor in determining whether the length of a custodial sentence was beyond purpose. The comparative difference in hypothetical sentencing scenarios was found to be limited.
The findings produced an overarching judicially related causal theme which included: the Sentencing Council lacking remit, resource and resolve: guidelines limiting judicial discretion, being applied mechanistically and either contributing to or not arresting rising sentences; a fear of being appealed; rehabilitation not being a presumed purpose of imposing custodial sentences and judicial attitudes being parochial. Four comparative themes were generated: the importance of a strong sense of humanity; the benefits of criminological thinking; that funding social policy may be a more effective way of tackling crime and an emulsion of punishment and rehabilitation is achievable.
The conclusions point to an ineffective system requiring key holistic changes including: a reconstituted Sentencing Council, a reinvigorated judiciary and rehabilitation becoming a presumptive purpose of custodial sentences creating an emulsive mix aligned with the aims of the Prison Service.

Date of Award	18 Feb 2026
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	University of Portsmouth
Supervisor	Francis Pakes (Supervisor), Gizem Guney (Supervisor) & Leah Alexandra Fox (Supervisor)