The major change seems to be that sentencing starts with consideration of culpability and harm, rather than with the nature of the offence itself. Furthermore, culpability and harm are to be judged
only by:
- Aggressive, abusive or disruptive behaviour (harm)
- High revenue loss (culpability - it's worth adding that there's no definition of the amount that might be considered 'high')
Whereas before these were highlighted as the most relevant, but other aggravating factors (eg offence committed whilst on bail, attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence - there's a list of around 20-30 factors) could be incorporated. These factors have now been moved, so that they are only considered AFTER categorization by the first two tests, as a way of increasing or reducing the sentence within a category's range.
The biggest change that this has brought about is that from April it will be possible to receive a conditional discharge for intent to avoid payment (the most common use of this Act I think) where low harm and low culpability are present - so someone who immediately admits to intentionally avoiding a low fare may receive that. To get that, they'd presumably have to have some of the following mitigating factors, alongside the standard reduction for a guilty plea.
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
Remorse
Good character and/or exemplary conduct
Serious medical condition requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender
Mental disorder or learning disability
Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
On the flip side, any evidence of higher harm or culpability must now more clearly be punished with higher fines.
