By Alejandra Garcia, Taylor DeClerck, Amber Moe, Sarah Blanco, Karen Otis, Danielle Pugh

TIPS Lab was born out of the need to address trauma in criminal courts—an urgent need shown by statistics on the prevalence of violence and victimization in the United States. For defendants in criminal courts, the prevalence of trauma is estimated at twice the rate as that of the general population,1 and for female, transgender, and juvenile defendants, experiences of victimization are nearly ubiquitous.2 Trauma can lead to justice system involvement through several mechanisms: substance use spurred by trauma, which can lead to arrest and prosecution for drug-related crimes; coercion to engage in criminal activity by an abusive partner or exploiter; trauma symptoms such as emotional dysregulation, hypervigilance to threat, and angry outbursts that increase risk for engaging in violent behavior and arrest; and utilization of violence as a survival strategy and learned behavior.3 Involvement in the system itself, including arrests, arraignments, and jail stays, are also opportunities for re-traumatization. Individuals who have experienced trauma within the criminal court system may exhibit symptoms such as flashbacks, overwhelming emotional and physiological responses, numbing, and dissociation. These symptoms can impact their well-being and hinder their ability to participate in the legal process. Trauma within the criminal legal system can manifest as attempts to gain a sense of control and safety; difficulty with attention, concentration, and memory; guardedness; and difficulty trusting court practitioners. When trauma is left unaddressed, defendants can cycle through the system, experiencing repeated arrests and prosecutions. Additionally, criminal court practitioners may have had their own traumatic experiences and can also be traumatized, or re-traumatized, which can affect their well-being and effectiveness as a practitioner.4 Practitioners can implement the recommendations in this blueprint to address trauma in order to enhance the consistency and effectiveness of criminal court practice, resulting in processes that are less stressful, calmer, and more comfortable for all court users

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2025. 64p.

By David Spencer

New guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council for judges and magistrates to follow when sentencing offenders are both significant and controversial. The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline, due to come into effect on the 1st April 2025, sets out the considerations for judges and magistrates when sentencing an offender who has been found or pleaded guilty in the criminal courts. The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline instructs courts to request and consider, prior to sentencing, a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion about sentencing. Pre-sentence reports enable the court to have as much information as possible about the offender, including the risk they pose to the public, before passing sentence. Judges and magistrates are instructed that they need not order a pre-sentence report only if they consider it unnecessary. The new guideline requires that from the 1st April 2025 a presentence report will “normally be required” when sentencing offenders from one of a whole host of different and specified groups – while some groups are included, others are excluded. In particular, those within the cohort where a pre-sentence report will “normally be required” include individuals who are from an ethnic, faith or cultural minority group. While there is nothing specifically preventing a court requesting a pre-sentence report for other offenders, those who are white or male will not, unless they can fit themselves into one of the other groupings available, qualify under the criteria that “a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary”. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, has made clear that she does not agree with the new Imposition guideline and, given the Sentencing Council have refused to withdraw it, she is willing to legislate to prevent “two-tier justice”. On the 28th March 2025 the Lord Chancellor said: “I have been clear in my view that these guidelines represent differential treatment, under which someone’s outcomes may be influenced by their race, culture or religion. This is unacceptable, and I formally set out my objections to this in a letter to the Sentencing Council last week. I am extremely disappointed by the Council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.” The Lord Chancellor is right. There must be no two-tier justice – which the new guideline represents – and the government should legislate without delay to correct the Sentencing Council’s error. In conversation with the authors at Policy Exchange, the Rt Hon Jack Straw – the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice who created the Sentencing Council – has expressed his strong support for Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP. He said: “I strongly support the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood MP, in the position she is taking relating to the new Imposition Guideline that the Sentencing Council have published. It is clear that the Government will need to take steps to correct the error. Given the crossparty support for this to be resolved, as shown by the position of the Shadow Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, I hope that this can be done quickly.” Pre-sentence reports, typically written by a probation officer, are key to judges and magistrates deciding whether to sentence an offender to prison or to a non-custodial community order – particularly in borderline cases. As a result, deciding which defendants are to be included in the cohorts where a pre-sentence report will “normally be required”, and which don’t, can be key in deciding who goes to prison and who doesn’t. The Sentencing Council, which produced the new guideline, is an independent non-departmental body that is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. The Labour government, under Prime Minister the Rt Hon Gordon Brown, created the Sentencing Council through section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Council commenced operations in April 2010. The framework for the creation of sentencing guidelines evolved during the period of Labour in office between 1997 – 2010. Two bodies associated with the production of guidelines for the sentencing of offenders – the Sentencing Advisory Panel and Sentencing Guidelines Council – were created (and subsequently abolished). We outline the history of this period in chapter 2 of this report. The Sentencing Council is responsible for the preparation of sentencing guidelines for judges and magistrates to follow when sentencing offenders. Section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 specifies that the Sentencing Council must prepare: “(a) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court’s duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas), and (b) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences” and may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter. We outline how the Sentencing Council is required to operate, under statute, in chapter 3 of this report. The membership of the Council is made up of both judicial and non-judicial members. Eight members of the Council are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor (“judicial members”) and six members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice (“non-judicial members”). We outline the current membership of the Sentencing Council, how members (continued_

London: Policy Exchange, 2025. 43p.

By Brian Johnson, Kiminori Nakamura, Lydia Becker, Raquel Hernandez

Firearms violence is a major policy concern in America. How criminal courts address firearm crimes represents a critical opportunity for improving public safety. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases are settled by guilty plea, yet little is known about the ways that plea deals impact criminal punishment for firearms-involved offenders, or how they shape subsequent recidivism. This project investigates the association between plea bargaining, sentencing, and recidivism outcomes in state-wide sample of firearms-involved offenders. It provides a descriptive overview of case characteristics and outcomes in firearms cases, examines the scope and impact of plea bargaining for these offenses, and considers how plea discounts potentially impact future reoffending. Findings indicate that plea negotiations are common in firearms-related offenses – a majority of cases involve multiple filed charges but a single conviction charge, and more than half of all cases include a reduction in the severity of the top charge between filing and conviction. The mean distance traveled, or average magnitude of plea discounts, results in a significant reduction in the likelihood of incarceration and expected sentence lengths. Results also reveal significant relationships between plea discounts and recidivism. Defendants who are convicted and sentenced to longer incarceration terms have lower odds of coming back into the system for a new offense, whereas those who receive charge reductions and are given larger plea discounts are more likely to recidivate during our study period. Because average sentences in firearms cases are substantial, and because our follow-up period is limited, these results likely reflect the short-term incapacitation effects of lengthier incarceration terms. Overall, the current study suggests there may be significant public safety implications of plea discounts in firearms cases, though future research is needed before strong policy recommendations can be offered.

College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 2024. 88p.

By R. D. Mackay

Mental condition defences have been used in several high-profile and controversial criminal trials in recent years. indeed, mental abnormality is increasingly an important yet complex source of defence within the criminal trial process. The author offers a detailed critical analysis of those defences within the Criminal Law where the accused relies on some form of mental abnormality as a source of defence. Topics covered include: the defences of automatism, insanity, diminished responsibility, and infanticide; self-induced incapacity; and the doctrine of fault. It also includes a chapter on unfitness to plead, which although not a defence has been included because of its important relationship to mental disorder within the criminal process. Drawing upon a wide variety of legal, psychiatric, and philosophical sources, this is a timely contribution to a controversial and complex topic.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996p. 278p.

By Sara Bastomski, Matt Herman, Alison Martin and Sara Friedman

Between April 2021 and February 2022, The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center conducted an analysis of racial equity across Montana’s criminal justice system in partnership with Montana judicial branch stakeholders. This work identified decision-making points in Montana’s criminal justice system in which there are disparities between American Indian and White people. Key findings include American Indian people are more likely to be incarcerated for felony criminal endangerment and public order offenses relative to comparable White people; American Indian people are incarcerated for longer than similarly situated White people; and American Indian people are more likely to be revoked from probation, conditional release, and parole than comparable White people. Based on these findings, the CSG Justice Center proposed five recommendations to improve racial equity in Montana’s criminal justice system.

New York: Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, 2022. 49p.

By Charity Organization Society of the City.

Six Years' Work of the Committee on Criminal Courts of the Charity Organization Society of the City of New York, 1911-1917: A story of its work for the clean, intelligent and kindly administration of our Inferior Criminal Courts.

Harrow and Heston Classic Reprint. (1918) 58 pages.

Edited By Jessica Jacobson And Penny Cooper.

Concepts, Realities and Aspirations. Foreword by the Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder : “The authors’ central thesis is that people should be able to participate effectively in the court and tribunal proceedings that directly concern them….The study shows that practitioners do, by and large, make sincere efforts to help lay users participate in proceedings; yet many barriers to participation remain which can leave users marginalised in hearings. It is the responsibility of all those who work in courts and tribunals to understand these barriers and take steps to help users overcome them – this study provides insight and practical suggestions. “

Bristol University Press (2020) 198p.