Untitled Page

Author	Prof Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng
Organisation/Institution	The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)
Country	HONG KONG (SAR OF CHINA)
Panel	Criminal Law
Title	SENTENCING WITH OR WITHOUT GUIDELINES: A CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ENGLAND & WALES AND HONG KONG
Abstract	The goal of sentencing guidelines is to provide a transparent mechanism to promote consistency and ensure equal justice. Although cases should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, there should not be substantial deviation in how sentences are handed out. Different legal jurisdictions have moved towards a broader implementation of sentencing guidelines to encourage sentencing consistency. The prime illustration of this is England and Wales where there are definitive guidelines set by the Sentencing Council for most common offences. To a lesser extent, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal sets sentencing guidelines for the lower courts to follow. Yet there are many factors, both legal and extra-legal, which may affect the final sentence outcome. In light of this complexity, a common critique is that sentencing guidelines constrain judicial discretion and hinder individualised justice; however, our cross-jurisdictional analysis indicates that they might actually better protect these principles than unrestricted discretion. Utilising two large-scale datasets – over 6,000 cases from England & Wales and over 2,500 cases from Hong Kong - we examine sentences for burglary, assault, and drug trafficking. The results reveal a paradox: guidelines in England & Wales contributed to greater consistency in retributive proportionality and enhanced consideration of personal mitigation factors such as remorse and rehabilitation. Conversely, Hong Kong’s discretionary approach to non-guideline offences resulted in inconsistent application of sentencing considerations and a neglect of defendant circumstances. Both systems prioritised procedural efficiency, with guilty pleas markedly reducing sentences across various crimes. These findings challenge the ‘bias effect’ critique by demonstrating that well-structured guidelines can better safeguard individualised justice than unfettered discretion. The study offers robust empirical evidence for institutional design in criminal justice systems.This work was supported by a General Research Fund (GRF) from the Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (Project No. 14607322).
Biography	Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng is an Associate Professor and Executive Director of the Centre for Comparative and Transnational Law (CCTL) at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) Faculty of Law. Previously, he served as the Faculty's Assistant Dean for Research. His research focuses on criminology, criminal justice, socio-legal studies, and empirical legal methods. Prof. Cheng has published extensively on guilty pleas, plea bargaining, procedural justice, and sentencing. He is the author of The Timing of Guilty Pleas: Lessons from Common Law Jurisdictions (Cambridge University Press, 2023), and his work has appeared in leading journals such as the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, The Journal of Criminal Justice, the British Journal of Criminology, and the Asian Journal of Comparative Law. He holds a PhD from the University of Hong Kong and a Juris Doctor from CUHK.