Research On Trust In Policing And Criminal Sentencing Deterrence
1. R v Bohannan [2010] EWCA Crim 2261 (UK)
Facts:
A police officer leaked sensitive police information to a drug dealer over several years.
This information allowed the offender to evade law enforcement and undermine investigations.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal increased the original sentence to six years’ imprisonment.
The court stressed that the officer’s conduct was a severe breach of public trust and had wider implications for policing legitimacy.
Significance:
The case highlights that crimes committed by law enforcement officers are treated more severely because they damage the public’s confidence in the police.
Trust and legitimacy are considered as aggravating factors in sentencing.
2. R v Collins, Lewis & Jaffer [2022] EWCA Crim 742 (UK)
Facts:
Three police officers misused official databases, shared confidential information about murder investigations, and breached crime scene protocols.
Sensitive information about vulnerable individuals was disclosed without justification.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal upheld custodial sentences, emphasizing the seriousness of breaching public trust and violating professional duties.
The court explicitly recognized the harm caused to the perception of policing legitimacy.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that misuse of position by public officials is treated as more serious than comparable offences by private citizens.
It links legal culpability directly to the erosion of public trust.
3. R v Dunn [2003] EWCA Crim 709 (UK)
Facts:
A police officer assaulted a defenseless individual during an arrest.
The assault, though classified as “common assault,” involved an abuse of official power.
Judgment:
The Court imposed a custodial sentence, stating that breaches of public trust by officers are inherently serious.
The court highlighted that public confidence in policing must be maintained through appropriate punishment.
Significance:
Even minor assaults are treated more severely when committed by officers because of their role in society.
Trust and deterrence are central to sentencing in cases involving law enforcement.
4. Bearden v Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983, USA)
Facts:
Bearden was on probation and failed to pay a court-imposed fine due to poverty.
He was imprisoned without consideration of his financial inability to pay.
Judgment:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that imprisonment solely for failure to pay a fine, without assessing ability, violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court emphasized fairness and proportionality in sentencing as critical to the legitimacy of the justice system.
Significance:
Demonstrates that the perceived fairness of sentencing influences public trust and compliance.
Excessively harsh or unfair penalties can undermine deterrence by reducing the perceived legitimacy of the system.
5. Solem v Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983, USA)
Facts:
Helm received a life sentence without parole for a relatively minor, non-violent felony.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The court emphasized proportionality and fairness in sentencing.
Significance:
Shows that disproportionate sentences can weaken trust in the justice system.
Public perception of legitimacy affects the deterrent effect of sentences.
6. State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur (India, 2023)
Facts:
In a rash and negligent driving case causing death, the trial court initially gave a lighter sentence.
The prosecution appealed, arguing the sentence was inadequate for deterrence and public protection.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reinstated a harsher sentence, emphasizing that deterrence was necessary to maintain public confidence in law enforcement and the justice system.
The court noted that leniency in such cases could undermine societal trust.
Significance:
Directly links deterrence and trust in the justice system.
Shows that sentencing is not only about punishing the offender but also about maintaining public confidence and the credibility of law enforcement.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
Breach of trust by public officials increases culpability (Bohannan, Collins).
Even minor offences by police are treated more severely to preserve legitimacy (Dunn).
Fairness and proportionality are essential for legitimacy and deterrence (Bearden, Solem).
Sentencing also communicates societal norms and expectations (Dil Bahadur).
Legitimacy of policing and criminal justice systems enhances compliance — public trust is both a protective and preventative tool.
RELATED Blog
comments