Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
The 1991 Act placed these pre-existing practices on statutory foundation. English judiciary has treated (a) offences by groups or gang, (b) offences against young, elderly or otherwise vulnerable victims, (c) offences involving the abuse of trust or authority, (d) offences involving planning or organisation, (e) offences involving political murder or attempted murder or terrorism oriented offences (Al-Banna, re-Hindwai, supra), as aggravating offences.
Greater culpability is the answer where the offender commits an offence against a vulnerable victim such as an old, very young, disabled etc (re: Allen and Bennet 1988 10 Cr. App. R. (S) 466).
The Floud Committee included grave harm to justify additional imprisonment in such offences which lead to death, serious bodily injury, serious sexual assault, severe or prolonged pain or mental distress, (Floud and Young 1981 P 118-119).
In re-Fowcet (1995 16 Cr. App. R (S) 55) the Court of Appeal observed that some factors, such as irrationality of the behaviour, the selection of vulnerable persons or a particular class of person or target, unusual obsession or delusions, will naturally assume prominence.
In 1993 Practice Direction, the Lord Chief Justice stated that Judges should specify the period to be served in all but very exceptional cases which are so serious that the Judge believes that the offender should be detained for his natural life (1993 96 Cr. App. R 397).
In the UK notion of general deterrence, which is different from individual deterrence, is often invoked to justify severe sentence for crimes of high seriousness. (Paras: 869-873); ..Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh, [2 LM (AD) 76]
