The Victorian jury study aimed to ascertain jurors’ views of sentencing severity and to compare the views of judges and jurors on the relevance of aggravating and mitigating factors. A surprising finding from the analysis of the sentencing remarks from the trials in the study is that delay was the third most common mitigating factor. This article suggests that because delay’s relevance as mitigating factor may be not immediately apparent to the public, the reasons why it attracts a reduced sentence should be clearly explained by sentencers. Refereed/Peer-reviewed