The sentencing guidelines for the sliding scale of sentence discounts in both England and Wales and Hong Kong have provided for judicial discretion to depart from the recommended sentence reductions. This chapter investigates the consistency of applying the sentencing guidelines in the two jurisdictions. It is found that in general, both English and Hong Kong courts adhere to the recommended guidelines. Multivariate analyses, however, using the sentence discount as the outcome reveal gender and confession to be significant factors for departing from guidelines, with female defendants and defendants who have confessed given a higher sentence discount. Moreover, when reviewing the sentencing process, inconsistencies occur when judges apply aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the sentence discount for guilty pleas, which may lead to inconsistencies in sentence outcomes.

This chapter discusses the adoption, and rejection, of a quantified sliding scale of sentence in comparable legal jurisdictions. The chapter begins with England and Wales, where the sliding scale of sentence discounts was first standardised. It then looks at Hong Kong, where its sliding scale of sentence discounts was a judicial creation of the appellate court that took inspiration from the developments in England and Wales. Afterwards, this chapter examines certain Australian states that have moved towards a quantified sliding scale of sentence discounts. It then discusses the two jurisdictions of Scotland and New Zealand, which have rejected the quantified sliding scale of sentence discounts in favour of greater judicial discretion. It is shown that despite the varying responses to whether quantified guidelines for sentence discounts for guilty pleas should be implemented, all the jurisdictions surveyed agree that earlier guilty pleas should generally attract higher sentence discounts, primarily justified based on the perceived utilitarian benefits of early guilty pleas.