Coroners and Justice Bill

It is common ground that none of us wants a Minneapolis system or any other kind of American grid system, and that is not proposed. The Gage report said:""A majority of the Working Group"—" the chairman was part of that majority—""recommends that the test for departures from the guidelines be made more robust by providing that the court may only pass a sentence outwith the guidelines if it is of the opinion that it is in the interests of justice to do so. A minority of the Working Group recommends that there should be no amendment to the statutory tests contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003."" Earlier in the report, the working group considered the responsibilities that should be imposed on the Sentencing Council, but—critically—the reader is referred to annexe C where the working group proposes a change to sections 172 and 174 of the 2003 Act. The working group suggests the wording:""Every court must…in sentencing an offender, apply any guidelines which are relevant to the offender's case unless it is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so"." The draftsman of the Bill has, as faithfully as possible, replicated that recommendation, so clause 108(1)(a) states:""Every court must…in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender's case unless…the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so"." There are better lawyers than me here, but I defy anybody to explain what is the difference between "must apply" and "must follow".