We are an exempt charity which is owned by two other organisations, would we be subject to the new (01.2.2016) sentencing guidelines, bearing in mind the guidelines provide for sentencing based on turnover, harm risked and the likelihood of harm. Any help appreciated

I work for a Charity, and I'm in no doubt that the sentencing guidelines would apply to us. We would fall into the category of a very large organisation (turnover well in excess of £50 million) and for a very culpable offence we would be looking at a fine in the range of seven figures. Judges have in the past applied a public benefit consideration in sentencing charities, but I'm not sure that would apply now, John

I believe there is still scope for a public or charitable body to have a discount if the fine would affect public services. However I do agree that recent sentences do not appear to reflect this aspect.

Some of the webinars on the arrival of the sentencing guidelines have ended with warnings regarding the consultation to (reduce) the guilty plea discount. Not sure about a public service discount - don't we fine hospitals and the like for missing targets? Never quite understood such a downward driving policy.

Having reviewed the SCG I have extracted the relevant details below. 'For charities: it will be appropriate to inspect annual audited accounts. Detailed analysis of expenditure or reserves is unlikely to be called for unless there is a suggestion of unusual or unnecessary expenditure.' The guidelines also state on p11: 'Where the fine will fall on public or charitable bodies, the fine should normally be substantially reduced if the offending organisation is able to demonstrate the proposed fine would have a significant impact on the provision of its services.' Hence the above reflects s164 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires that the fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence and that the court must take into account the financial circumstances of the offender whether that is an individual or organisation. Whether it is right to give what is in effect a discount to non-profit organisation is a moot point. A substantial discount as in the Barrow-in-Furness legionella case hardly acts as a deterrent for other would be offenders.