Criminal justice measures are sometimes described as promoting a "crime control", a "due process" or a "managerialist" approach. Which (if any) of these approaches does the judgment in Goodyear advance? Criminal justice measures are caught up by the irreconcilable conflicting, dual goals of crime control and due process. To establish whether any of these approaches are advanced by Goodyear one must firstly ascertain their precise meanings. Packer has produced the most definitive work on the models.
He states that the value system that underlies the Crime Control model is based on the proposition that the repression of criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal process. In order to be able to achieve this the model aims at a high rate of apprehension and conviction placing emphasis on haste and finality, and subsequently preferring informal to formal procedures. There is an overlap between the objectives of this model and the Managerial model. Like the crime control model it aims at speed and efficiency by minimizing conflict and expense.
The model also, unlike the crime control model, aspires for criminal justice measures to be independent of political concerns. Conversely, the due process model strives to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice and liberty. Furthermore, it places a emphasis on a formal and open adjudication of the facts in court with the possibility of appeal, in order to give maximum protection to the innocent. The approach most advanced by Goodyear is the crime control model. The crime control model aims foremost at a high rate of apprehension and conviction of offenders. This will be easier to fulfil with the introduction of sentence indications.
This is because defendants, even if innocent, could be enticed by the sentence reduction which they get with an early plea; increasing the number of convictions. This view is also held by Professor Michael Zander who has argued in 'Sense and sentencing' that Goodyear will have a "quite considerable" impact concerning the number of guilty pleas with there being a reduction in trials that "crack at the last minute". The increased number of sentence reductions will also help to reduce cost as the lighter the sentence the less expensive since they spend less time in prison, advancing the managerial model which insists upon cost efficient methods.
The crime control and managerial models desire for speed and efficiency will be promoted by Goodyear. With the predicted increased number of early guilty pleas from defendants there will be less requirement for extended trials, consequently saving time. As Zander pointed out, there will be a reduction in "cracked trials" and "collapsed trials" which cause an unnecessary inconvenience and wastage of scarce resources, especially judicial time. Moreover, this will reduce the amount of expenditure which is wasted on "cracked trials" – favouring the managerial models desire for cost-efficiency.
Both models preferable method of an informal procedure with minimal opportunity for challenge has also been promoted. With the anticipation that "thousands more defendants are expected to admit their crimes" there will be more people placing guilty pleas pre-trial which means there will be less need to follow the formal procedure of going to court to challenge peoples innocent verdicts. This will inexorably reduce conflict to the minimum. The managerialist model, unlike the crime control model, places emphasis upon the criminal justice measures working independently from political considerations. This does not appear to have been met.
New Labour's election victory in 1997 outlined a "modernization" agenda which included "streamlining in the caseload". Moreover, these political aspirations could have been fundamental in galvanizing the approval of sentence indications to meet the governments requirement for lowering the caseload. Even though this encourages the managerial's desire for efficiency, it conflicts with its requirement for independence from political considerations. For this reason the managerial model is not advanced as far as the crime control model. It is more contentious as to whether the due process model is advanced by Goodyear.
In some respects it creates a fairer procedure since it enables defendants to make a more knowledgeable decision of whether to plead guilty and clarifies their position concerning plea bargaining. However, it can also be argued, more strongly, that it fails in advancing the model since its main idiosyncrasies are that it should guarantee justice and that a "right to be heard is a an indispensable core of due process". This criteria is not fulfilled by the decrease in trials expected after Goodyear. In order for fairness to be satisfied the defendant should not be subjected to any undue pressure.
However, sentence discounts of this kind are so large (up to a third sentence reduction) that they can place undue pressure on those who uphold their innocence. Therefore, a defendant "may plead guilty when innocent in order to take advantage of a sentence discount" which will result in an unfair trial without justice. Evidence that the Goodyear fails to maintain fairness on behalf of the defendant has also been shown by Ashworth who argues that the new guidelines might not satisfy Article 6(1) of the European Convention that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and public hearing.
One characteristic of cases in which there is a guilty plea is that there is no real public hearing and thus there is good reason to believe that a case determined in this way would not satisfy Article 6(1). A public hearing is also required since it is the participation in a trial which is efficacious in preventing elements of arbitrariness. This strongly suggests that the due process model has not been advanced on the basis that its main characteristics – fairness and justice – haven't been satisfied with the probability that there will be less trials.
Nevertheless, it is claimed that "the objective of these guidelines is to ensure common process and continuing safeguards against the appearance of judicial pressure on the defendant". There is evidence of this since they suggest that the judge should "avoid creating pressure… on the defendant to plead guilty". In reality though, there will indubitably be more pressure on defendants to take advantage of the sentence discounts. To conclude, the crime control model has been most advanced since it is predicted that a lot more defendants will admit their guilty earlier on in the process; saving time and formality in going to trial.
The managerial model's interests have also been promoted although it is likely that it's desire for criminal justice measures to be independent from political considerations has been met – hence not as advanced as Crime control. On the contrary, the due process approach has not been advanced. Although new guidelines outline more clearly how the judge should behave – creating less pressure on the defendant – the fact that there will be less trials and an increased chance of innocent defendants pleading guilty means that, on the whole, this model is not advanced.