Editing Plea bargain (section)

==Usage in common law countries==
===Canada===
In Canada, the courts always have the final say with regard to sentencing. Nevertheless, plea bargaining has become an accepted part of the criminal justice system although judges and Crown attorneys are often reluctant to refer to it as such. In most Canadian criminal proceedings, [[the Crown]] has the ability to recommend a lighter sentence than it would seek following a guilty verdict in exchange for a guilty plea.<ref>{{cite web|title=Victim Participation in the Plea Negotiation Process in canada|url=http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr02_5/p3.html|website=Department of Justice|access-date=28 June 2017|date=7 January 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170707131819/http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr02_5/p3.html|archive-date=7 July 2017}}</ref>

Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown can also agree to withdraw some charges against the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea. This has become standard procedure for certain offences such as [[impaired driving]]. In the case of [[hybrid offence]]s, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed [[summary conviction|summarily]] or [[Indictable offence|by indictment]] prior to the defendant making his or her plea. If the Crown elects to proceed summarily and the defendant then pleads [[not guilty (plea)|not guilty]], the Crown cannot change its election. Therefore, the Crown is not in a position to offer to proceed summarily in exchange for a guilty plea.

Canadian judges are not bound by the Crown's sentencing recommendations and could impose harsher (or more lenient) penalties. Therefore, the Crown and the defence will often make a ''joint submission'' with respect to sentencing. While a joint submission can entail both the Crown and defence recommending exactly the same disposition of a case, this is not common except in cases that are sufficiently minor that the Crown is willing to recommend a [[discharge (sentence)|discharge]]. In more serious cases, a joint submission normally call for a sentence within relatively narrow range, with the Crown arguing for a sentence at the upper end of the range and the defence arguing for a sentence at the lower end, so as to maintain the visibility of the judge's ability to exercise discretion.<ref>{{cite web|title=Resolution Discussions|url=http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch07.html|website=Public Prosecution Service of Canada|access-date=28 June 2017|date=31 August 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170717001353/http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch07.html|archive-date=17 July 2017}}</ref>

Judges are not bound to impose a sentence within the range of a joint submission, and a judge's disregard for a joint submission is not in itself grounds for the sentence to be altered on appeal. However, if a judge routinely disregards joint submissions, that judge would compromise the ability of the Crown to offer meaningful incentives for defendants to plead guilty. Defence lawyers would become reluctant to enter into joint submissions if they were thought to be of little value with a particular judge, which would thus result in otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges will normally impose a sentence within the range of any joint submission.<ref>{{Cite web |author=A. Pringle |url=http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006344#SUBLinks |title=Plea Bargaining - The Canadian Encyclopedia |publisher=Encyclopediecanadienne.ca |access-date=2012-03-14 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111001061612/http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006344#SUBLinks |archive-date=2011-10-01 }}</ref>

Following a [[Supreme Court of Canada]] ruling that imposes strict time limits on the resolution of criminal cases (eighteen months for cases in provincial court and thirty months for cases in Superior Court), several provinces have initiated and intensified measures intended to maximize the number of minor criminal cases resolved by a plea bargain.

Largely particular to the Canadian justice system is that further negotiations concerning the final disposition of a criminal case may also arise even after a sentence has been passed. This is because in Canada the Crown has (by common law standards) a very broad right to appeal acquittals,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Government of Canada |first=Department of Justice |date=2014-09-02 |title=3.15 Appeals and Interventions in the Provincial and Territorial Courts of Appeal - PPSC |url=https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch15.html |access-date=2025-01-30 |website=www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca}}</ref> and also a right to appeal for harsher sentences except in cases where the sentence imposed was maximum allowed. Therefore, in Canada, after sentencing the defence sometimes has an incentive to try to persuade the Crown to not appeal a case, in exchange for the defence also declining to appeal. While, strictly speaking, this is not plea bargaining, it is done for largely the same reasons.

===England and Wales===
In England and Wales, plea bargaining, in the sense of seeking a particular sentence in exchange for dropping some charges, is not permitted; only the judge or magistrates have the power to determine sentence, and an agreement between the prosecution and defence cannot bind the court. The [[Crown Prosecution Service]] is required to prosecute an offence only where there is a realistic prospect of conviction, so greater charges cannot lawfully be used in bad faith to intimidate the defendant into accepting the charge actually sought.

A defendant is permitted to plead guilty to some charges listed on the charge sheet or indictment and deny others, and the prosecution may agree to accept this plea and drop the denied charges; such an agreement will generally be accepted by the court as it serves the public interest, as well as the defendant's and victims' interests, to avoid the expense and stress of a trial. The defendant may also plead guilty on the basis of accepted facts that may affect sentencing while denying others, but the Sentencing Council stresses that the prosecution should accept such a plea only if it enables the court to impose a sentence and make other ancillary orders that are appropriate for the seriousness of the offence, and never merely for the sake of convenience. The prosecution must also take the victims' views into account.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/guiltypleas.html |title=Code for Crown Prosecutors – Accepting Guilty Pleas |publisher=Crown Prosecution Service |access-date=2013-11-21 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828213532/http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/guiltypleas.html |archive-date=2013-08-28 }}</ref>

In cases before the Crown Court, the defendant can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty. Following the rule in ''[[R v Goodyear]]'', it is only appropriate to give such an indication if requested by the defence with the defendant's written authorization; such indication is treated as binding on the court, but only if the defendant actually pleads guilty, and cannot prevent the sentence being [[Criminal Justice Act 1988#Unduly lenient sentences|appealed as unduly lenient]].<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=R v Goodyear |year=2005 |court=EWCA |division=Crim |courtname=auto |juris=auto |num=888 |date=19 April 2005 |access-date=2013-11-21}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm |title=At the Crown Court – Court Stage – Enforcement Guide (England & Wales) |publisher=Health and Safety Executive |access-date=2012-07-31 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120709015904/http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm |archive-date=2012-07-09 }}</ref>

In the case of [[Hybrid offence|either way offences]], the decision whether to deal with a case in a magistrates' court or the Crown Court is not made by magistrates until after a plea has been entered. A defendant is thus unable to plead guilty in exchange for having a case dealt with in magistrates' court (which has lesser sentencing powers).

Where the defendant pleads guilty or indicates an intention to do so, the guidelines set by the [[Sentencing Council]] typically require that they receive a discount on the sentence, with the amount of discount depending on the timing:
*Indicating a guilty plea at the first opportunity (typically the committal hearing in the magistrates' court): one third
*Pleading guilty at a later hearing in the magistrates' court, or at the first hearing in crown court (typically the plea and case management hearing): one quarter
*Pleading guilty on the first day of trial: one tenth

The discount can sometimes involve changing the type of punishment, such as substituting a prison sentence for [[Community service#Court ordered service|community service]].<ref name="SentencingCouncil"/> For some offences where a mandatory minimum sentence applies, section 73 of the [[Sentencing Act 2020]] permits the sentence to be reduced this way up to 20 percent below the minimum.<ref name="2020c17s73"/>

Section 73 requires the court to take into account the circumstances under which an indication to plead guilty was made in addition to its timing.<ref name="2020c17s73">{{cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2020 |chapter=17 |section=73 |act=Sentencing Act 2020}}</ref>

===India===
Plea bargaining was introduced in India by ''The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005'', which amended the [[Criminal Procedure Code of India|Code of Criminal Procedure]] and introduced a new chapter, XXI(A), in the code, enforceable from July 5, 2006.<ref name="Act 2 of 2006">{{cite web|title=The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1732853/|website=India Kanoon|access-date=28 June 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171109022349/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1732853/|archive-date=9 November 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Plea bargaining comes into effect|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/plea-bargaining-comes-into-effect/article3101111.ece|access-date=28 June 2017|agency=The Hindu|date=6 July 2006|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171109022320/http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/plea-bargaining-comes-into-effect/article3101111.ece|archive-date=9 November 2017}}</ref> It allows plea bargaining for cases in which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for seven years or less; however, offenses affecting the socio-economic condition of the country and offenses committed against a woman or a child below 14 are excluded.<ref name="Act 2 of 2006"/>

In 2007, the Sakharam Bandekar case became the first such case in India where the accused, Sakharam Bandekar, requested lesser punishment in return for confessing to his crime (using plea bargaining). However, the court rejected his plea and accepted the [[Central Bureau of Investigation|CBI]]'s argument that the accused was facing serious charges of corruption.<ref>{{cite news|title=First plea bargaining case in city|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/First-plea-bargaining-case-in-city/articleshow/2458523.cms?referral=PM|access-date=28 June 2017|newspaper=Times of India|date=15 October 2007|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019182743/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/First-plea-bargaining-case-in-city/articleshow/2458523.cms?referral=PM|archive-date=19 October 2017}}</ref> Finally, the court [[convicted]] Bandekar and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.<ref>{{cite news|title=RBI clerk sent to 3 yrs in jail|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/RBI-clerk-sent-to-3-yrs-in-jail/articleshow/2461828.cms?referral=PM|access-date=28 June 2017|newspaper=Times of India|date=16 October 2007|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019182751/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/RBI-clerk-sent-to-3-yrs-in-jail/articleshow/2461828.cms?referral=PM|archive-date=19 October 2017}}</ref>

In December 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was passed, to replace Code of Criminal Procedure by July 2024, which allows first time offender to be given relaxed punishment (one-fourth and one-sixth of such punishment) in plea bargaining.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-12-21 |title=Lok Sabha passes three criminal law Bills: Here are the key changes |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/criminal-law-bills-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-key-changes-highlights-9077165/ |access-date=2024-06-16 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

===Pakistan===
Plea bargaining as a formal legal provision was introduced in Pakistan by the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, an anti-corruption law. A special feature of this plea bargain is that the accused applies for it, accepting guilt, and offers to return the proceeds of corruption as determined by investigators and prosecutors. After an endorsement by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau, the request is presented before the court, which decides whether it should be accepted or not. If the request for plea bargain is accepted by the court, the accused stands convicted but neither is sentenced if in trial nor undergoes any sentence previously pronounced by a lower court if in appeal. The accused is disqualified to take part in elections, hold any public office, or obtain a loan from any bank; the accused is also dismissed from service if a government official.

In other cases, formal plea bargains in Pakistan are limited, but the prosecutor has the authority to drop a case or a charge in a case and, in practice, often does so, in return for a defendant pleading guilty on some lesser charge. No bargaining takes place over the penalty, which is the court's sole privilege.{{citation needed|date=November 2019}}

===United States===
{{Main|Plea bargaining in the United States}}
Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority (roughly 90%)<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Plea Bargaining and Its History |first=Albert W. |last=Alschuler |journal=[[Columbia Law Review|Colum. L. Rev.]] |year=1979 |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=1–43 |jstor=1122051 |doi=10.2307/1122051 |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2005&context=journal_articles }}</ref> of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a [[jury trial]].<ref>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/mcspadden.html Interview with Judge Michael McSpadden] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010131431/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/mcspadden.html |date=2017-10-10 }} PBS interview, December 16, 2003</ref> Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different states and jurisdictions have different rules. The [[Federal Sentencing Guidelines]] are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts. A two- or three-level offense level reduction is usually available for those who [[accept responsibility]] by not holding the prosecution to the burden of proving its case; this usually amounts to a complete sentence reduction had they gone to trial and lost.<ref>{{Citation|volume=54|publisher=Stan. L. Rev.|page=311|date=2001–2002|title=Apprendi and the Dynamics of Guilty Pleas|author=Bibas, Stephanos|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/stflr54&section=17|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118234257/http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals%2Fstflr54&section=17|archive-date=2012-01-18}}</ref>

The [[Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure]] provide for two main types of plea agreements. An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw their plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, however, binds the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw their plea.<ref>{{cite web|title=Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11. Pleas|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|access-date=28 June 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729182541/https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11|archive-date=29 July 2017|date=2011-11-30}}</ref>

Plea bargains are so common in the [[Superior Courts of California]] (the general trial courts) that the [[Judicial Council of California]] has published an optional seven-page form (containing all mandatory advisements required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce such bargains into written plea agreements.<ref>See [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr101.pdf Form CR-101, Plea Form With Explanations and Waiver of Rights-Felony] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091009133217/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr101.pdf |date=2009-10-09 }}, [[Judicial Council of California]].</ref>

Certain aspects of the American justice system serve to promote plea bargaining. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system puts judges in a passive role, in which they have no independent access to information with which to assess the strength of the case against the defendant. The prosecutor and defense may thus control the outcome of a case through plea bargaining. The court must approve a plea bargain as being within the interests of justice.

The lack of [[compulsory prosecution]] also gives prosecutors greater discretion as well as the inability of crime victims to mount a [[private prosecution]] and their limited ability to influence plea agreements.<ref>{{Citation|title=The Entrenched Position of Plea Bargaining in United States Legal Practice|author=JE Ross|year=2006|pages=717–732|journal=[[American Journal of Comparative Law]] |volume=54|jstor=20454559|doi=10.1093/ajcl/54.suppl1.717}}</ref> Defendants who are held in custody—who either do not have the right to bail or cannot afford bail, or who do not qualify for release on their own recognizance—may get out of jail immediately following the judge's acceptance of a plea.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Raphling|first1=John|title=Plead guilty, go home. Plead not guilty, stay in jail|url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raphling-bail-20170517-story.html|access-date=19 November 2017|work=Los Angeles Times|date=17 May 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171118173541/http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raphling-bail-20170517-story.html|archive-date=18 November 2017}}</ref>

Generally, once a plea bargain is made and accepted by the courts, the matter is final and cannot be appealed.  However, a defendant may withdraw his plea for certain legal reasons,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wispd.org/attachments/article/230/Substantive%20Claims%20and%20New%20Developments%20in%20Appeals%20of%20Plea%20Cases.pdf |title=Home |access-date=2017-11-04 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170517062308/http://wispd.org/attachments/article/230/Substantive%20Claims%20and%20New%20Developments%20in%20Appeals%20of%20Plea%20Cases.pdf |archive-date=2017-05-17 }}</ref> and a defendant may agree to a "conditional" plea bargain, whereby they plead guilty and accept a sentence, but reserve the right to appeal a specific matter (such as violation of a constitutional right).  If the defendant does not win on appeal the agreement is carried out; if the defendant is successful on appeal the bargain is terminated.  The defendant in ''[[Doggett v. United States]]'' made such a bargain, reserving the right to appeal solely on the grounds that he was not given a speedy trial as required by the United States Constitution; Doggett's claim was upheld by the United States Supreme Court and he was freed.

===Other common law jurisdictions===
In some common law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the Australian state of [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], plea bargaining is practiced only to the extent that the prosecution and the defense can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges or to reduced charges in exchange for the prosecutor withdrawing the remaining or more serious charges. In [[New South Wales]], a 10-25% discount on the sentence is customarily given in exchange for an early guilty plea, but this concession is expected to be granted by the judge as a way of recognizing the utilitarian value of an early guilty plea to the justice system - it is never negotiated with a prosecutor.<ref>{{cite web|title=Guideline judgement of R v Thomson; R v Houlton [200] NSWCCA 309|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2000/309.html|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=28 June 2017|date=17 August 2000}}</ref> The courts in these jurisdictions have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place between the prosecution and the defence over criminal penalties.