The Disappearing Trial 112. Sentence discounts can be limited in the following ways: • By empowering judges to determine final sentences: While some jurisdictions essentially bind judges to the sentence agreed upon by the parties (Estonia and Georgia), in many others, the parties do not agree on a specific sentence, but it is understood that a discount will be applied by the judge. Many jurisdictions (including but not limited to Australia, New Zealand and Singapore) permit judges to establish sentences following trial waivers within existing sentencing guidelines. • By regulating discounts in statute: England and Wales has agreed a reform to its sentencing guidelines that will establish a standard discount to be applied to all cases according to the time at which a trial waiver (known as a “guilty plea”) is offered (with no reference to the type of offence, strength of the evidence, or other mitigating factors). The discount would be applied after any mitigation had been accounted for, making it possible to perceive the effect of the trial waiver discount as separate from any other aspect of sentencing. In other jurisdictions, such as Germany, the bargained-for sentence cannot be lower than statutory minimums. The size of sentence discounts vary by jurisdiction and relevant factors in individual cases, but where they are regulated either by statute or judicial control, they range from 10–15% in Australia and Peru, up to 25% in New Zealand, and to a maximum of a third off the sentence in England and Wales, for example. Armenia). Others are limited to financial or organised crime cases (usually in conjunction with cooperating witness procedures, as in Brazil) and others exempt certain types of offences (for example, sexual offences, murder, or death penalty cases). In the Philippines, trial waivers (known as “plea bargaining”) cannot be used in drug prosecutions. 114. Some systems require extra levels of review for the use of trial waivers in relation to certain crimes. In New Zealand, for example, any trial waiver (known variously as “plea and charge discussions”, “plea discussions” and “plea negotiation”) in relation to a charge of murder must receive special approval by the Solicitor General. In Croatia, for cases involving offences against life, body or sexual freedom for which a sentence of at least five years is envisaged, the State Attorney is required to consult the victim regarding the content of the trial waiver (known as “plea agreement”) prior to entering into a trial waiver with the accused. 115. The diversity of types of safeguards within different trial waivers and unique characteristics of each can provide models of good practice for jurisdictions considering reforms to their own systems, and provide a counternarrative to the mistaken notion that the US model of trial waivers is the characteristic or exemplary form of the practice. Their inconsistent use across jurisdictions, however, points to the need for a more systematic and comprehensive approach to the rule of law and human rights implications of the practice. ix. Limitations on types of cases 113. There are also limitations in many jurisdictions on the types of cases for which trial waiver systems can be used. In Chile, the law makes clear that trial waivers (known as “procedimientos abreviados”) should not be entered into if the defendant could avail himself or herself of a more diversionary alternative. In Hungary and other jurisdictions, trial waivers are not available to juvenile defendants. Many jurisdictions limit the use of trial waivers to minor cases, though the definition of “minor case” varies substantially (from a maximum sentence of five years in Luxembourg, seven years in Romania and India and 10 years in Singapore and 57.