Six months for stealing water? It's not remotely a fair punishment http://t.co/iFkYY1M

Six months for stealing water? It’s not remotely a fair punishment | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/e7hgqy4 via @libcon

Six months for stealing water? It's not remotely a fair punishment http://t.co/iFkYY1M

Six months for stealing water? It's not remotely a fair punishment http://t.co/iFkYY1M

Six months for stealing water? It's not remotely a fair punishment http://t.co/iFkYY1M

? @libcon: Six months for stealing water? It's not remotely a fair punishment http://t.co/kDaONTK

@rahooligan My new piece on LibCon. http://t.co/iYtBPQx

Six months for stealing water? It’s not remotely a fair punishment | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iYtBPQx via @libcon

Tweets linking to the post are coming up as ‘comments’ right now. Am sorting that out…

On this scale, presumably it will mean life for the successful arson attack on Reeves Corner in Croydon.

What will the courts so if someone is convicted for the killing of that 68 year-old who was trying to stamp out a fire in Ealing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14520847

Our ancesters were more shrewd than is often supposed. They were aware of the problem of perverse incentives in sentencing. When hanging could be the penalty on conviction for petty theft, something with more credible deterrent power was obviously required for truly heinous crimes such as treason or an attack on the person of the sovereign. The answer was hanging, drawing and quartering – reader discretion is advised:
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/hdq.html

On 31 January 1606, Guy Fawkes was hanged, drawn and quartered in Old Palace Yard, Westminster:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/estatehistory/the-middle-ages/oldandnewpalaceyards-/

For offences like this, community service makes much more sense. Let them help to fix the community they ruined, instead of letting them doss around in prison on our money, come out with a criminal record and be unable to get a job.
None of this makes sense.

@Nikki – It immediately makes sense if you replace a judge’s job of dispensing justice with dispensing vengeance. Course if you’re the victim of crime outside of a riot, it appears you’ll have to make do with your aggressor recieving a lesser sentence.

Most of my right wing friends agree that this is a stupid punishment, especially after you tell then how much jailing him costs the tax payer (I actually got it wrong at the time as I said £15,000!). In my oppionion it’s a big waste of a citizen’s potential, I doubt he is really a danger to society and a community service sentence would probably have been more than enough. Now we will just have another person locked out the job market who is angry at society. Unfortunately I think there are going to be more stories like this over the next week or two.

@12

Golly. Perhaps your right wing friends are secretly liberal. All it takes is to step out of one’s bubble and engage one’s brain.

@13

lol I doubt it, but the fact they aren’t far right crazies means we have pleasant discussions. We all want everyone to have a job and people to not have to live in poverty, we just have different views about handling it. I think they main reason they are right wing however is because their families own small businesses so they are surrounded by other right wingers constantly. My best mate who lives in London now says I’m the only left wing person he knows! oh yeah funny thing is they all love the NHS, I think thats only because most of them have gone to America several times and constantly get told how terrible and expensive private healthcare is. So I guess that makes them more centre right in reality. I’m glad I know them because it makes me realize the crazies you get on here aren’t actually what most right wing people are like.

I agree the sentence seems very stiff indeed, but your argument in his defence is not very strong.

“Robinson’s involvement in the ‘background of public disorder’ was exaggerated by Baldwin.”

The same excuse could be made about any single individual rioter. After all, whichever rioter/looter/arsonist/murderer you point to, there were many thousands of others involved. It’s still a poor excuse though.

“This sentence points to a wider phenomenon of persecution and retribution”

‘Persecuted’? If he didn’t want to be ‘persecuted’ he didn’t have to commit the crime, did he?

“A medium (or even lower) level community order would have been effective.

Such an order would have deterred Robinson from committing another crime.”

It’s possible but how do you know this?

“If this happens, Robinson will have no financial benefits, not be able to find a job and not have his engineering qualification.

We may see him rioting again in the future.”

Possibly. And we may well see the army on the streets next time. And they may well shoot him. And most of the population will probably shrug and say he got what was coming to him.

By all means argue for a community sentence, which might well work (though it is not a certainty). But do drop the rubbish about the rioters being ‘persecuted’. They are damn lucky none of them were killed. The same cannot be said for those they murdered.

Disgusted with the justice of it all. I know it is wrong but many kids I think got caught up in the moment. Going to make a lot more kids alienated and angry .How is a family going to help the offending offspring if they are threatened with eviction because of his actions. Where was his defence – was he not going to put the fires out?

“Where was his defence – was he not going to put the fires out?”

Any excuse will do, evidently.

“Going to make a lot more kids alienated and angry”

For ‘alienated and angry’, you aint seen nothing yet. It’s the public’s turn, and if this happens again, opinion will want troops on the streets and shooting rioters.

I suspect he’s being punished for being who he is rather than for what he did. It’s the Charlie Gilmour syndrome: he’s white, and he’s not from a disadvantaged background, so make an example of him. Meanwhile, disadvantaged blacks and whites are getting much more lenient sentences for doing far worse things, and when they are much more likely to reoffend than he is….That said, he was a bloody fool to get involved.

The riots have really brought out the ugly side of a large section of the public.

Well it is certainly steep. Still, I think exemplary – not necessary draconian, but quite strict – sentences for all those involved are necessary. They have given the rest of society a good shaking and now it is their turn to be shaken.

The excuse that they will be more alienated and angry is the sort of excuse made by weak parents for failing to be firm with children. They’ve already ruined numerous people’s lives and murdered some people. Is that not enough? In the long run, to base such sentences on a fear of what they will do if they don’t like the sentences (of course, they won’t, they won’t like any punishment at all) just means such kids try to get away with more and more and do worse things.

To capitulate to such people out of fear is a recipe for a far worse social disaster. The least helpful thing anyone else can do is to tell them they have been hard done by and that they have yet another legitimate ‘grievance’. Compared to the irreparable damage they have collectively done they are all getting off lightly.

“The riots have really brought out the ugly side of a large section of the public.”

Yes, the section of the public which burns people’s oout of their homes, kills people, ruins the livelihoods of others, and its section of idiot apologists who portray them as victims and those who clear up afterwards as ‘fascists’. The sort of people who pick imprisoned serial killers as penpals.

A sentence to satisfy the sadism of the right-wing British public, where they can spend their evenings fantasising about someone who stole some water being raped in prison by hardened prison sociopaths, while the criminals in high places who fleece them daily are above the law and go unpunished.

What a wonderful country filled with such wonderful people.

There are a number of worrying aspects to what is happening here.

(Standard disclaimer: despite my posting name, I have no involvement with the criminal justice system; hell, I’ve never even seen the inside of a court room!)

The first is the haste with which large numbers of people have been processed through the courts. If we are to have a system of Justice rather than merely of Law, then the processes need to be deliberative, irrespective of how inconvenient it may be to some. Instead, we have had:

# Summary disposals where the sentences have been disproportionate to the point of being at times, quite frankly, grotesque,

# The referral of many cases to the Crown Court for sentencing, which means that prison sentences of over six months are almost inevitable for all of those thus committed,

# The routine – even casual – use of imprisonment without trial (or, as the euphemism has it, ‘remand into custody’) for cases where such a course of action would normally seldom be considered.

All of this has taken place in an unseemly hurry, with the magistrates involved not having the proper time to consider the background of the case, and where the defendants may not have had adequate legal advice due to the shortage of time, or due to their appointed representatives having to deal with so many other cases over one extended court session.

Given what has happened in the past eight or nine months regarding sentences in relation to public disorder, where people have either been given custodial sentences well in excess of what would otherwise have been handed out (Woollard, Gilmour), or given substantial custodial sentences where one would not have been applied (Fernie), then we have to see this as sentencing which has become – using the word in its broader sense – politicised.

The yappings and snarlings of Cameron, Gove, May, et al. in recent days can’t have done anything other than increase the perceived pressure on magistrates to ‘crack down’.

Now, Lee Griffin (and others) may come on here and say that the magistrates were acting well within their powers when they have done what they have done in recent days, but that isn’t the point. Cameron could probably launch a nuclear first strike on Libya well within his powers, but that doesn’t mean that it would be ethical or proportionate to do so.

If magistrates are not under an outright obligation to behave in the way they have been doing in the past few days, then why – other than political pressure, or even class bias – are they doing it?

To go on to the long-term effects of these sentences and remands, then it is obvious that little if anything positive can come from them. If any of those who have been imprisoned (in either category) had jobs when they came up before the beaks, they almost certainly won’t have when they come out (especially as about 60% of employers will not, under any circumstances, employ ex-prisoners). In the case of Nicholas Robinson, it’ll be at least mid-October before he is released. Will the college he was at permit him to return? I’m afraid the odds are against him, as they will be against anyone else in his position. And this will go for all those who have been imprisoned without trial, even if they are subsequently acquitted or given non-custodial sentences.

So, in addition to the short-term costs of imprisoning hundreds (if not thousands) of people when there is no need to (£30k – £70k per prisoner per year multiplied by how many?), there will be the further costs of the unemployability of all those people for years thereafter, or the consequences of being unable to get the level of educational attainment they should have done.

The result? Well, one would hardly need to be a Professor Laurie Taylor to divine that. Increased alienation, anger and crime. Especially if those who have been through this process also have their access to the benefits system removed or if they and their families are evicted from their homes by councils (of all parties) who are practically having orgasms over the prospect of kicking people when they’re already down.

On a broader point, some will claim that the sentences have to be more severe because the offences were committed in the context of serious public disorder. Again, according to the letter of the law, what has happened is not ultra vires. But we need to ask a more fundamental question: is it really just to punish someone not because of what they themselves have provenly done, but because of what other people – with whom the defendant had no connection and over whom he had no control – may have been doing/have done fifty-odd yards away or an hour or two previously? Something is not right with the notion that it is just to do this. Just like so-called ‘deterrent’ or ‘exemplary’ sentences, it singles out some for disproportionately harsh treatment. All those who are at present cheering on the magistrates should stop and consider that, perhaps not now, but in due course if these precedents go unchallenged, it could easily happen to them or to someone they care about. By protecting those we disapprove of from abuse of power, we are also in the long term protecting ourselves.

Sorry, long comment, but this is important isn’t it?

@16: Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion, or are you merely speaking ex orificio?

And people tell me that judges are not political.

It cracks me up everytime.

@17
The “ugly side” of people is always there actively working away in the background. Current events have merely made it easier to see.
Violence begets violence and ignorance begets ignorance.
For the most part we ignore the systematIc and institutional mental violence society and its keepers exert on particular social groups – generation after generation. Upper class, middle class, working class and under class. How can this pseudo cast system lead to anything other than misery for a large section of society?!

We get back what we put out.

@ the judge,

“So, in addition to the short-term costs of imprisoning hundreds (if not thousands) of people when there is no need to (£30k – £70k per prisoner per year multiplied by how many?), ”

How are you costing that? What prices are you putting on all the business and homes destroyed, and jobs and lives lost because of this rioting?

I am not disputing that probably not all need be put in prison, and there is no point in just hammering the rioters for the sake of it. At the same time, it’s not clear how you think lower sentences – ASBOs, perhaps? – will make it less likely there will be recurrence of such behaviour.

David Cameron: You messed up my holiday now I mess up your life

(said with an Arnold Schwarzenegger accent)

how should we treat a looter?

“how should we treat a looter?”

With a six months sentence for stealing water, how long for the arson attacks on the Allied Carpet building in Tottenham and Reeves Corner in Croydon – or the killing of that 68 year-old man in Ealing who was trying to stamp out a fire?

in Muslim law, I believe he would still get his hand chopped off. Theft is theft, almost regardless of what you steal.

Andrew @27:

My costings are based on figures which are generally bandied about by those in the know which I’ve picked up around the place. The actual cost would, of course, vary according to which category of prison they happened to be in – the higher, the more expensive for obvious reasons.

As to the nature/extent of the sentences, given the cases that we’re actually talking about here (e.g. Nicholas Robinson), I think one would be hard pressed to maintain a credible case for imprisonment. There are many others in the same category. For these, there are a number of non-custodial options, such as curfews plus other restrictions such as banning orders, plus community service. This would have the benefits of being, a) cheaper for us, b) providing some way in which the offender could contribute back to the community, and c) being just as irksome in their way as incarceration would be.

As for whether these would be a deterrent, well I’m still waiting to be convinced that any sentence has much in the way of a deterrent effect in any case. But, I’d put this to you: which would be more likely to reduce the incidence of re-offending by these particular individuals (many of them first-time offenders); having a crimp put in their social and travel arrangements (but not affecting their opportunity to hold down employment or education) plus being made to work to put things right, or putting them in prison just because we can and then throwing them out on the streets (literally, if councils like Wandsworth have their way) without a job or education (or the hope of either)?

We have to think long-term. For the sake of all of us.

On the average cost per prison resident, try the answer to this PQ in January:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110111/text/110111w0003.htm

@ the Judge,

with respect, I wasn’t just referring to the cost of imprisonment, I was referring also to the cost to society of the riots, thus:

“How are you costing that? What prices are you putting on all the business and homes destroyed, and jobs and lives lost because of this rioting?”

You may well be right about your suggested alternative. Those are fair points. It does depend, however, on those alternative arrangements being properly enforced. Unfortunately, as we are aware, often community orders have not been enforced and are treated as some kind of joke by offenders and authorities alike. Such arrangements will gave to be shown to be taken seriously by authorities and offenders alike.

I suspect many of those arrested won’t offend again – so long as they do get a genuine shock and a sense of what they have done and what could and will happen to them if they re-offend. That needn’t entail draconian measures, but they do need to be just firm enough. And the narrative of ‘whatabout the bankers…?’ needs to be dropped, because however angry we are about the bankers – I am certainly – that cannot be dangled as a possible mitigator for such behaviour.

I am not rich, I am on less than half the average national wage. I don’t have many of the luxuries most teenagers treat and are being encouraged to treat as their human rights entitlements. I don’t have a private pension, a house, a car, a TV, Nike trainers or a blackberry… and I do not riot. I want justice to deal with bankers and rioters alike, and contrary to what some pseudo-revolutionary fools would like to believebelieve, two wrongs don’t make a right and the rioters were not ‘rising’ for the benefit of anyone but themselves.

How are you costing that? What prices are you putting on all the business and homes destroyed, and jobs and lives lost because of this rioting?

Er, perhaps the sentences of those responsible for those particular incidents should reflect that cost, rather than a petty water crate thief who didn’t destroy any businesses or homes. Just sayin.

Cameron is to announce a new diagnosis of the reasons for the riots: A moral collapse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8701371/UK-riots-David-Cameron-confronts-Britains-moral-collapse.html

“Mr Cameron will also blame ‘children without fathers; schools without discipline; reward without effort; crime without punishment; rights without responsibilities; communities without control’.”

In short, anything but the government.

What we need is a new law to define a new crime of Moral Decline with draconian penalties for infractions.

That should fix it.

More deregulation, anyone?

can that chap , a former member of the Bullingdon club?, who did a little vandalism have a retrospective sentence imposed what do you think Dave

Should the alternative be Sharia?

@ cylux,

“How are you costing that? What prices are you putting on all the business and homes destroyed, and jobs and lives lost because of this rioting?

Er, perhaps the sentences of those responsible for those particular incidents should reflect that cost, rather than a petty water crate thief who didn’t destroy any businesses or homes. Just sayin.”

Another swerve around the question I asked. I wasn’t suggesting that the water thief should bear the cost of the whole riots. The judge was talking about the cost of imprisoning all the rioters being excessive. I asked in response how one costed the damage done by the riots themselves, and what price one puts on the lives lost, jobs destroyed etc. A reasonable question.

@ Bob B

“Mr Cameron will also blame ‘children without fathers; schools without discipline; reward without effort; crime without punishment; rights without responsibilities; communities without control’.”

In short, anything but the government.”

To verying degrees those are fair criticisms to make. The government has some responsibility in some of them but not all. It’s not all or mainly the fault of this (or the last) government, it is a larger cross-class and cross-generational problem which has been developing for many years and fed by people’s refusal to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions and inaction.

Unless you believe the government has a responsibility to socially engineer the whole of society, and that people have no responsibility for their children or their own behaviour, it is not, primarily, the fault of the government.

On the one hand, the sentence does sound extremely harsh, and someone stealing £3.50 of water in another context, if they were of good character, I can imagine him getting off with a tiny fine.

However, I do understand the logic behind the sentence. It isn’t about stopping him re-offending, if he’s someone with good prospects and of generally good character, getting involved in the criminal justice system alone will probably be sufficient deterrent. Indeed, even a small fine would probably have been sufficient to prevent him re-offending.

He was given this punishment to deter others. In particular, to deter the sort of people who wouldn’t normally steal anything, but who might be convinced, in the heat of a riot, surrounded by others, to nick something small. These people on the edge are not hard core looters, but people who have something to lose but got swept up in events. – However, a big headline “Six months for stealing £3.50 of water” essentially adds up to “Participate in Looting – Go to Prison” in peoples minds.

It raises the threshold of seriousness just to get involved.

Official Sentencing Statistics are useful for gauging just how harsh these sentences are (as well as exploding “soft on crime” myths but that’s a different matter).

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/sentencing-stats2009.pdf

Many of those being prosecuted are being charged with theft.

In 2009, of 220,752 proven theft/handling stolen goods offenders, 19,942 were sentenced to immediate custody – 9% (page 15) and the average sentence (of those sentenced) handed down by magistrates was 2 months (page 40).

6 months for a first offender in a non-violent, non-confrontational opportunistic theft of £3.50 worth of goods is plainly way out of step with normal sentencing.

These are plainly political sentences.

Sevillista,

These are plainly political sentences.

What do you mean by “political sentence”?

Another swerve around the question I asked. I wasn’t suggesting that the water thief should bear the cost of the whole riots. The judge was talking about the cost of imprisoning all the rioters being excessive. I asked in response how one costed the damage done by the riots themselves, and what price one puts on the lives lost, jobs destroyed etc. A reasonable question.

Given how things with law and order generally work I can almost guarantee you that regardless of the value of the cost of the damage done by the riots, the excessive punishments will cost more, in both the short and definitely the long term.
Assuming your question is only about the matter of price anyway.
Once you start mixing in concepts of justice the scales tip even more.

I’m unsympathetic because the rioting and looting were selfish acts. They were selfish acts by people who didn’t stop to think about the impact they would have on other normal people.

It’s true – an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But, for example, evicting rioters from council housing is an interesting idea, because those rioters made lots of people homeless through their thoughtless arson. Why should they have priority for housing over those who were burnt out?

I haven’t heard enough interviews with looters explaining why they did it. I would be interested to hear.

Another dispatch from inside The Labour bubble. The Criminal Justice system has a whole series of functions of which “pure” Justice is only one.
Collective Revenge, to discourage individual revenge is another.
The elements stressed in this case are discouragement of others & an expression of Public outrage.

The fact that most people, even most Labour voters are calling for harsh sentencing is a sign of how detached many on your wing of The “Left” are.

@ukliberty

Disproportionate sentences imposed by the judiciary which ignoring severity of offence, mitigating factors etc and ignoring their sentencing guidelines in response to pressure from the Government.

“He was given this punishment to deter others.”

This is not the purpose of the justice system, and it’s abhorrent that it is used as such.

@39: “Unless you believe the government has a responsibility to socially engineer the whole of society, and that people have no responsibility for their children or their own behaviour, it is not, primarily, the fault of the government.”

In the news this Monday morning:

Cameron pledges to ‘mend broken society’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14527902

Btw when was that time when “society” wasn’t broken and how can we tell?

Another dispatch from inside The Labour bubble. The Criminal Justice system has a whole series of functions of which “pure” Justice is only one.
Collective Revenge, to discourage individual revenge is another.

Claim A and Claim B are contradictory, for further information, see – Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Mr. Nietzsche, 1883.

The elements stressed in this case are discouragement of others & an expression of Public outrage.

At least you admit we don’t have an independent judiciary, that is something I suppose.

Btw when was that time when “society” wasn’t broken and how can we tell?

Not sure myself, lets ask Norman Tebbit;

“Those mining communities had good working-class values and a sense of family values. The men did real men’s heavy work going down the pit. There were also very close-knit communities which were able to deal with the few troublesome kids. If they had any problems they would take the kid round the back and give them a good clip round the ear and that would be the end of it.”

Reading about the case of the 13 year old girl who was raped by a 15 year old lad during the looting makes me think that these punishments are of the correct level of harshness.

By involving themselves, these people contributed to a breakdown of order which others used as a cover to commit horrific crimes such as this. A nasty mob mentality which is used like a crow bar to intimidate, destroy and loot.

Lee Griffin,

“He was given this punishment to deter others.”

This is not the purpose of the justice system, …

Are you saying punishment is not supposed to be a deterrent?

@50:

Many mining communities developed in geograhic isolation with only fragmentary public transport links to elsewhere. That and the hazards of working down mines fostered a deep sense of mutual dependence for survival reasons and for social bonding. The extent of the geographic isolation often sheds light on why mining communities were so badly hit by mine closures – I can recall Yorkshire villages where c. 40% of the jobs were in the local mine. Some mining communities had very real cultural skills – hence the famous colliery brass bands. DH Lawrence came from a Nottinghamshire mining community – his father was a miner. His mother had other ambitions for her son: Sons and Lovers

We need IMO to distinguish between mining communities and the social isolation of some ethnic communities in parts of London and northern cities. The social chemistry is very different.

The youthful communities in Tottenham and Croydon are not so confined by bad or infrequent access to public transport when they are in jobs that provide enough income for the fares. The challenging issues are more likely to be about finding a legitimate job with poor educational attainment and a questionable work ethic. As the government and pundits have been warning for years, unskilled jobs are becoming increasingly scarce and will become even more so in future. David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, was born in the area and grew up there in a single-parent family. He has an illustrious record of academic attainment.

Ethnic gangs have been with us for centuries. The musical West Side Story is about ethnic gangs, as is Shakespeare’s play, Romeo and Juliet, which inspired it.

One big difference between Norman Tebbit and myself is that I don’t start social analysis with a prior commitment to a political agenda.

Punishment is clearly a deterent, the point being that everyone that goes in to the system gets justice served and the punishment dealt is a warning. However this person has not been dealt with on their own merits, and to punish him to “send out a message” is completely illiberal. Every single person needs to be dealt with fairly within the sentencing system, otherwise the system is broken. We can’t have people serving more time than they deserve in the hope of deterring other people (especially when the circumstances are so unlikely to occur again) when they as an individual haven’t deserved that.

We have no right to trade off the rights of an individual purely to serve as an attempt at instilling fear.

“A nasty mob mentality which is used like a crow bar to intimidate, destroy and loot.”

Yet by all accounts this guy was not a part of the mob mentality, merely an opportunist

It is interesting how quickly the Police/CPS (as well as magistrates and district judges) have taken these political steers on board.

Essex Police have charged a man under the Serious Crime Act 2007 for commissioning a water fight via Blackberry messenger http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/15/Essex-water-fight-blackberry-messenger

We do need to crack down on such serious thuggish behaviour though. Engaging in water fights shows a lack of morals and the fact youngsters think waging war using water is acceptable behaviour is a symptom of our broken society. It’s the fault of the Human Rights Act and Health and Safety legislation that people act in this way

[54] “However this person has not been dealt with on their own merits, and to punish him to “send out a message” is completely illiberal” – well if it is illiberal it is already a well established practice within our legal system.

Take road traffic accidents, for example – “In determining sentence, it is important for courts to stress the message as to the dangers that can result from dangerous driving on the road. Motor vehicles can be lethal if not driven properly and this being so, drivers must know that as a result of their driving dangerously, if a person is killed, no matter what the mitigating circumstances, normally only a custodial sentence would be imposed. This is because of the need to deter other drivers from driving in a dangerous manner and because of the gravity of the offence”.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

Now looking at that last sentence again it states quite explicitly a custodial sentence in one case is used as a way to deter others from committing similar offenses irrespective of the particulars of another case.

So how is this principle any more illiberal in the stolen water case given the number of deaths that have already been caused during the riots?

Having said that I think it was wrong to jail somebody for such a minor offense even allowing for the obvious intention to deter any subsequent wave of shopping opportunists.

Try these reflections on the various rationales for sentencing:
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cjs/26906.htm

After the 2001 riots in Bradford, rioters were handed draconian sentences – 2 years for throwing stones and an arsonist got 12 years.

Were these sentencesa deterant, did the people out last Monday even know abouth them?

He was a PLAYER! What’s the matter with you?

If I’d been the magistrate he’d have got 2 years.

“in Muslim law, I believe he would still get his hand chopped off. Theft is theft, almost regardless of what you steal.”

Except if you are a banker or politician. There would be a lot of one handed bankers and politicians.

Going to make a lot more kids alienated and angry .

Cry me a river. He’s being made an example. Good. Organize a protest for him if you like; the rest of the country could do with a belly laugh after last week.

You guys are going to be in for a big shock when, as hopefully happens, “zero tolerance” policing is introduced. Ideally under Bill Bratton, but the “British jobs for British workers” dead wood in the ACPO won’t allow it.

@24. The Judge: “The first is the haste with which large numbers of people have been processed through the courts. If we are to have a system of Justice rather than merely of Law, then the processes need to be deliberative, irrespective of how inconvenient it may be to some.”

The rush to justice is a worrying aspect. There are practical and judicial reasons why those charged with minor property crimes should be assessed for guilt while memories and evidence are fresh. If a guilty sentence is determined, however, there is no immediate need for sentencing. The guilty, particularly those who have no relevant criminal record, deserve normal standards of background assessment before a sentence is passed. There will be a few familiar faces found guilty for whom fast track is appropriate but Nicholas Robinson does not appear to be one of them.

Bob B asks about sentences for arsonists. Most can expect an indeterminate sentence and if they are assessed as a fire raiser, they’ll probably start off in a secure psychiatric unit. Some will stay inside for life; in a Catch 22 situation, they are ineligible to attend a mental hospital because they cannot be cured, and they are ineligible for prison release because they are a danger to others.

Idiot troll “You guys are going to be in for a big shock when, as hopefully happens, “zero tolerance” policing is introduced.”

Will this apply to bankers and people like The Murdoch’s?

No, thought not. Ther real wreckers of society go free in the right wing troll world.

Very funny watching the right wing demand more control over people. These are the same twits who always tell us about the wonders of self regulation. Once again the hypocrisy of typical right winger is priceless to see

The Evening Standard have confirmed the existence of a political directive to supposedly independent judiciary that they must suspend their sentencing guidelines and jail all involve in crimes, however minor, connected to the riots

http://img.ly/7mB0

Is this normal practice? And is a power to delete sentencing guidelines on political whims one that we are satisfied with the Executive exercising with no debate?

Will this apply to bankers and people like The Murdoch’s?

Hopefully, yes, the law will be enforced with more vigour right across the spectrum.

No, thought not.

Nobody expected you to.

The rush to justice is a worrying aspect.

Yes, I find it deeply disturbing that after a nationwide outbreak of crime including a number of murders, the courts are actually sitting on a Sunday. Scandalous.

I have always said that there is a cigarettes papers difference between a tory and a brownshit, and Scooby beautifully demonstrates this with each of his idiotic statements.

So he welcomes a political courtroom, which seems to be quite obvious now. The so called independent judiciary is shown to be another English lie. And Scooby cheers it on. Jackboot England here we come.

The Evening Standard have confirmed the existence of a political directive to supposedly independent judiciary that they must suspend their sentencing guidelines and jail all involve in crimes, however minor, connected to the riots

If this is true it is a major scandal.

The government should have no role in determining justice and, if they have set guidelines or applied pressure to the judiciary as seems probable from reports of the sentencing, they have gone way beyond their constitutional remit and brought the rule of law into disrepute.

I repeat.

This is a major scandal and all liberal/lefties should get onto it.

@69. Scooby: “Quoting me: ‘The rush to justice is a worrying aspect.’

Yes, I find it deeply disturbing that after a nationwide outbreak of crime including a number of murders, the courts are actually sitting on a Sunday. Scandalous.”

Ho, ho, ho. Your selective quotation, omitting the next two following sentences of my post, was hilarious and illuminating. On a daily basis, you probably imagine that people are rolling in the aisles following witty displays of your perspicacity. And indeed, you are imagining it.

@71: “This is a major scandal and all liberal/lefties should get onto it.”

Try the report in the Mail:

Magistrates have been ordered to send all those involved in last week’s riots and looting to jail, a court heard today.

Chair of the bench at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court, Novello Noades, revealed the instructions while sentencing one looter to six months in prison.

London courts had allegedly been emailed by a clerk within HM Courts and Tribunals Service, telling them to ignore normal guidelines which might have recommended non-custodial sentences for riot-related cases.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026239/UK-riots-Tear-sentencing-guidelines-jail-EVERY-looter-magistrates-told.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

So much for our “independent judiciary”.

@71. pagar: “The government should have no role in determining justice…”

Err, it is a bit more complicated than that. Government, largely, determines which bills are submitted to Parliament, then Parliament decides what to do. So Government (with a capital G, implying the role of Cabinet etc) does have a role in determining justice, simply by contributing to creation of law. Laws also include guidance about the penalties that should be applied to transgressors.

Where we are clear in the UK is that Government cannot change justice on the hoof. Cabinet ministers can’t create new offences or change the standard tariff for an offence without parliamentary consent.

The Evening Standard story doesn’t contain any evidence, and the quotes in that story can be construed in different ways. But I agree absolutely that anyone found guilty in August 2011 for theft during a riot (or whatever) should be sentenced on the same terms as somebody convicted in July 2011.

I think that the public deserve to see those emails and any advice issued in other forms.

Under the unwritten British Constitution, there are two important conventions which help to preserve judicial independence. The first is that Parliament does not comment on the cases which are before the court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence

A “directive” from government on sentencing seems to me to completely undermine our constitution.

OK it’s not in writing but what the hell else have we got?

Oh, stop bleating, lefties. As if anyone is taken in by your proffered concern for the delicate British constitution. HM Courts and Tribunals Service is independent of the government. If you have any evidence that in the trials of rioters, the maximum sentences as laid down by parliament are being exceeded, then produce it. Otherwise, it really is none of your business (that’s what judicial independence means as well, you know).

Government excuse in this Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/15/riots-magistrates-sentencing

@ Scooby

From Bob’s link.

Justices clerk Claire Luxford replied: ‘It’s general guidance – not a directive as such – that the sentencing guidelines in cases such as these are not applied.’

What is that if not “parliament not commenting on cases that are before the court”?

@scooby

Wow. A desire for an independent judiciary is a loony left-wing value and a desire to see one is bleating.

And, to be fair, I’m not sure pagar will agree with the description.

anyone found guilty in August 2011 for theft during a riot (or whatever) should be sentenced on the same terms as somebody convicted in July 2011.

What a daft thing to say. Justice means taking into account the circumstances of the offense, and the circumstances are very different. That is why a range of sentencing options are available to the courts.

Having said that, it seems there is some undue leniency involved so far. How many have been charged with riot, and how many have received 10 year sentences for it? Think about that before wetting your knickers over the sentences so far.

Sevillista, the Guardian article you linked too explicitly debunks any claim that the government is compromising the independence of the judiciary.

Some sensible advice by Sunny was offered just a few days ago, for the Left to wait until things have settled down before launching into its usual nonsense and demonstrating how out-of-touch it is with the public mood. Did you burks not get the memo?

As I said before, this is a major breach of our unwritten constitution, bringing it’s whole legitimacy into question.

It seems clear that the government have directly intervened in the judicial process and that HM Courts and Tribunals Service is NOT independent of the government.

Does nobody care?

Sunny, get a post up on this.

Man charged for organising water fight in Colchester – http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/15/essex-water-fight-blackberry-messenger

Youths arrested in Tehran for organising water fight – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/04/water-fight-pistols-iran-arrests

@71

This is a major scandal and all liberal/lefties should get onto it.

With what? You’ve basically got all the representation, why wouldn’t tories ‘get onto it’?

82 I am not surprised because I never believed in the “independent Judiciary” myth in the first place. It is trotted out by rather stupid tory politicians, and their followers.

You only have to see the way most judges behave anytime a police officer is in court. They practically beg the jury to find them not guilty.

@80. Scooby: “What a daft thing to say. Justice means taking into account the circumstances of the offense, and the circumstances are very different. That is why a range of sentencing options are available to the courts.”

My example was about identical offences judged one month apart. Of course, no offence could be identical to another unless both were committed concurrently by twins living in a control environment. But it is reasonable to assume that UK justice should treat more or less similar crimes in more or less the same fashion over a more or less short interval of time.

@scooby

No it doesn’t.

It says that the Government have pressured lay magistrates to ignore sentencing guidelines as they, for political reasons, want to retrospectively alter the guidelines to try and make sure all convicted of even minor crimes that occured around the time of the riots get jail terms regardless of severity of crime or mitigating factors.

This is not a left/right issue – an executive dictating sentences that should be applied is an abuse of power. The Government have real questions to answer.

Is Liberty, formerly NCCL, on holiday?

They have published two press statements about the English Riots on their web pages.

Sevillista, there is no evidence to support your claim. This is what the Guardian article says:

Clarifying what had occurred, HMCTS explained that a senior clerk had circulated instructions to court clerks that they should advise magistrates to consider disregarding normal sentencing guidelines.

The advice was issued last week in the aftermath of the riots. It was given, it is said, to ensure consistency of sentencing across the country. Courts can therefore consider the riots as an aggravating factor in any offence, making stealing from looted shops more serious than conventional shoplifting.

If you want to interpret that as the government interfering in the courts then please feel free to go ahead and make a mendacious fool of yourself.

For anyone else as hard of understanding as Sevillista: when the government orders judges to pass harsher sentences, that is a violation of the independence of the judiciary. When the government expresses it’s hope that rioters will be jailed, echoing popular sentiment across the country (outside this thread), that is just that — a hope. Not interference. Doh.

@scooby

” When the government expresses it’s hope that rioters will be jailed, echoing popular sentiment across the country (outside this thread), that is just that — a hope. Not interference”

The Government sent advice to all magistrates telling them to ignore their sentencing guidelines and jail all offenders. That’s a little beyond “expressing the hope” is it not? Cameron expressed the hope that magistrates would be harsh, and then his Government took steps to rip up sentencing guidelines to ensure it happened. There is a difference between the two.

Perhaps the Government will publish:
* The text of any sentencing guidance/directives issued to magistrates/courts
* Publish all correspondence between Ministers, Ministry of Justice officials and the Courts Service about this issue

Then we can decide if I’m “mendacious fool” or “hard of understanding” or whether you are a complacent apologist for a Government brazenly interfering with the independence of the judiciary.

Cameron expressed the hope that magistrates would be harsh, and then his Government took steps to rip up sentencing guidelines to ensure it happened. There is a difference between the two.

Precisely.

Justices clerk Claire Luxford said

‘It’s general guidance – not a directive as such – that the sentencing guidelines in cases such as these are not applied.’

That “guidance” was unconstitutional. Quite wrong.

@ Scooby

Clarifying what had occurred, HMCTS explained that a senior clerk had circulated instructions to court clerks that they should advise magistrates to consider disregarding normal sentencing guidelines.

Who gave the instructions to the “senior clerk”?

We are supposed to be living in a constitutional democracy, not a tin-pot dictatorship.

“Accordingly magistrates in London are being advised by their legal advisers to consider whether their powers of punishment are sufficient in dealing with some cases arising from the recent disorder.”

In London? Equality before English law?

“How many have been charged with riot, and how many have received 10 year sentences for it? ”

Given most that have been charged with more serious offences haven’t entered a plea or went for not guilty, no-one pretty much…they’re ongoing cases.

The Government sent advice to all magistrates telling them to ignore their sentencing guidelines and jail all offenders.

You keep claiming this, and you keep failing to produce evidence of it. The article you cited explicitly discounts it: “Magistrates are being advised by the courts service to disregard normal sentencing guidelines when dealing with those convicted of offences committed in the context of last week’s riots… The Ministry of Justice denied that it had asked the HMCTS to issue the advice. The Judicial Communications Office, which issues statements on behalf of judges, also dismissed suggestions it had been involved.”

You see, this is why Sunny told you all to take some time off before weighing in with your idiotic, dishonest and frankly risible opinions.

Once again for the terminally thick, the judiciary, acting independently, has decided to set aside some normal sentencing guidelines, in the face of unprecedented law-breaking, by referring cases to a higher court. Most people in the country will be delighted to hear that, you know.

@scooby

Quoting from the Evening Standard:

The case, at Camberwell, highlighted the effect of ministerial edicts for tougher sentencing as the chairwoman of the bench told lawyers that she had received instructions to jail all rioters. “Our directive for anyone involved in the rioting is a custodial sentence,” she said. “That is the directive we have had.”

The court clerk, Claire Luxford, later said magistrates had been emailed by a manager within the HM Courts and Tribunals Service, telling them to ignore normal guidelines which might have recommended non-custodial sentences for riot-related cases. She added: “It’s general guidance, not a directive as such, that the sentencing guidelines in cases such as these are not applied.”

So the magistrates have received a directive/guidance from a Government agency advising them to ignore sentencing guidelines and impose a jail sentence after Cameron said he expects all involved in riots to be jailed (the “last resort” inappropriate for the crimes being discussed according to sentencing guidelines)

I see you have changed tack now and admit political interference in sentencing is wrong, and are now instead denying political interference took place.

Given the quotes from court officials and magistrates above, it appears there has been interference by someone. There are strong grounds to suspect ministerial interference. Forgive me if I don’t trust the government denials in Guardian – this is a serious matter and one would expect the Government to try and bullshit its way out of it.

Quoting from the Evening Standard:

So you finally accept that your original Guardian citation does not support your outlandish claims?

And you’ve failed to provide a link to this new citation, nor clearly distinguish between what is quotation and what is your added comment.

Epic fail. Lurk more and see if you can eventually pick up how this game is supposed to be played, sonny.

Incidentally, if you had actually read the Guardian article you cited, you would have read the bit where Luxford retracted her claim that there had been a “directive”, and regretted the misleading impression she gave that the government had ordered the courts to modify their sentencing guidelines.

Like I said, lurk more.

What’s interesting though, Scooby, is court cases are disbanded for interference from outside sources that can prejudice the outcome of cases. The similarity between that and this situation, where a government has effectively stated what they wish to happen to people found guilty…and the ability then for magistrates to objectively sentence is called in to question.

You can also talk as much as you want about the court’s service being independent but it is still ultimately accountable to a government minister. They can say that no-one has ordered or pressured them to do anything, but the beauty of politics is that while the precise wording may be true, the reality may not be that simple.

@scooby

My original citation was the Evening Standard. See posting 67 at 7-07pm which links to a photograph of the relevant part of the Standard’s article.

I posted the Guardian link as balance (saying “Government’s excuses here”) as it gave the Government’s view on events. See posting 77 at 8-17pm (which is after 7-07pm at least on my clock. Maybe your clock is different?).

I’m interested in what the sequence of events was. A Telegraph article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8703370/UK-riots-magistrates-told-ignore-the-rule-book-and-lock-up-looters.html suggests:

1. Cameron urges magistrates to lock up all offenders
2. It becomes apparent magistrates are following sentencing guidelines and ignoring Cameron, as they should
3. *Someone* gets annoyed at this and intervenes
4. Memo gets sent to all London courts instructing them to ignore sentencing guidelines and impose Cameron’s dictat.

I’m interested in stage 3 and who that *someone* was.

And Luxford has not regretted her claim – Noades (the magistrate) has. There is no denial that sentence guidelines have been ripped up or that jail terms are the default for any crime in London vaguely riot-related. Though it was, apparently, just strongly worded advice that made Noades feel it was a directive. And why trust the denials which are merely intended to ward of a shitstorm of further questions.

It seems your “game” is played by ignoring what people say so you can use your poor reading comprehension to call them “fools”

And one more thing on that Guardian article – the Criminal Procedure rules allow clerks and legal advisers to give advice based on existing sentencing guidelines, not to rip existing guidelines up and create new ones on an ad hoc basis.

The creation of new sentencing guidance is the role of the Sentencing Council http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/about-us.htm.

I would expect any new sentencing guidelines being used (i.e. jail all involved regardless of seriousness/mitigation) to have come from them to be consistent with judicial independence. And I would still want to be convinced they are not under undue political pressure to do so.

Ironically, if government interference is ‘unconstitutional’ then in theory the sentencing guidelines themselves (which are provided by the government), are unconstitutional, and therefore this entire semantic dance is meaningless.

The fact is that Magistrates are ‘in theory’ allowed to use their judgment to decide upon sentences based on the severity of the crime. The sentencing guidelines are actually more binding than what we would traditionally call guidelines, in that if they are not followed then the magistrate will have to give a reason why. – But the entire point of the guidelines is that they are advice from the state to the courts.

You can’t say – This is outrageous! the government is telling the courts to ignore the advice that the government gave in the past.

@Ed

“You can’t say – This is outrageous! the government is telling the courts to ignore the advice that the government gave in the past.”

That is not the argument being made though.

The independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales exists to protect the independence of the judiciary and has statutory responsibility for developing the sentencing guidelines to which, by law, magistrates and judges must follow in determining sentences.

A memo from the government bypassing this procedure and ripping up the independently determined sentencing guidelines would appear to compromise judicial independence and be of dubious legality.

I have no issue with the government influencing sentencing via the proper procedures in place via feeding into sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Council. The problem is with bypassing this procedure and the resultant political interference in sentencing (aside from the questionable retrospectiveness of the new ad hoc sentencing guidelines).

If I was someone sentenced under this improper directive I would be seeking it to be quashed due to this improper procedure being followed.

If I was someone sentenced under this improper directive I would be seeking it to be quashed due to this improper procedure being followed.

So would I. And I can’t believe other than that large numbers of those sentenced will not appeal their sentences.

I also suspect the courts will surely uphold the appeals, even if only to make the independent judiciary point.

It’s not meant to be fair. It is meant to terrify: middle England will be avenged. These are show trials with a specific political message for the “underclass” – ironically since the Tories etc are still prating about the riots not being political.

A memo from the government bypassing this procedure and ripping up the independently determined sentencing guidelines would appear to compromise judicial independence and be of dubious legality.

I think the time to get the vapours about this outrageous infringement of our glorious unwritten constitution is when we have slightly more detail as to what this memo contains.

For a start, the Courts Service have no power to instruct magistrates one way or the other, and it is pretty unthinkable that they’d attempt to in terms.

For a second, this is probably very little more than a reminder to magistrates’ clerks that taking part in civil disorder should be considered a substantially aggravating factor in any charge (for extremely good and well-established public policy reasons) and that this factor ought to be borne in mind when sentencing.

If it emerges that actually senior clerks in the Courts Service have been issuing unambiguous instructions to magistrates, ordering them to ignore sentencing guidelines, then I’ll be the first to condemn it. But I doubt it.

@timj

I agree more information is required and look forward to the Government publishing all correspondence with court clerks and all MoJ/HM Courts Service correspondence in full so we can understand the issue.

Claire Luxford’s (clerk of Camberwell court) quote in the Evening Standard shows she took away from the memo an instruction to not apply sentencing guidelines. It certainly looks bad as doing such a thing without a directive from the Sentencing Council would be an illegal act.

doing such a thing without a directive from the Sentencing Council would be an illegal act

Not so much illegal as impossible. The Courts Service don’t have the power to instruct magistrates on sentencing any more than I do.

Community service should be standard for crimes committed against the community.

This is total overkill.

@TimJ

Is your argument now that even if the Government instructed court clerks to tell magistrates (volunteers who rely on the legal advice of court officials remember) to ignore sentencing guidelines and to use new sentencing guidelines incorporating Cameron’s “jail everyone” instruction, then that would be ok as magistrates would ignore them as they are legally bound to? The evidence is that magistrates have not ignored the instruction.

How far would a Government have to go before you thought they were interfering in judicial independence if retrospectively ripping up sentence guidelines bypassing the Sentencing Council is apparently ok?

@Tim J

I think the time to get the vapours about this outrageous infringement of our glorious unwritten constitution is when we have slightly more detail as to what this memo contains.

Of course it would be better if our constitution were written, with clearly defined separation of powers. But interference by the executive in the outcome of criminal trials is clearly unconstitutional.

I’ll get the vapours now- you wait until the next PM instructs magistrates not to jail anyone involved in a riot or everyone caught fox hunting.

Community service should be standard for crimes committed against the community.

All crimes are ‘crimes committed against the community’. That’s why it’s R v Smith.

110 – My position is that it is outside the remit of the Courts Service to isue ‘instructions’ or ‘directives’ to magistrates on sentencing. It’s not something they have the power to do. So I’d be very surprised if that is what they did. Most of the time, when your reaction to a bit of news is ‘that can’t be true’ it turns out not to be true. As I said above, I’d be less surprised if this was a memo from the Courts Service to court clerks reminding them that taking part in civil disorder is considered a signficantly aggravating factor in otherwise minor offences. Magistrates generally don’t have legal qualifications, and it’s the job of the clerks to give them legal advice. This sort of thing is what a mags’ court clerk is for.

Or, you know, it’s a coup and we should call in the army.

“Or, you know, it’s a coup and we should call in the army.”

Nice straw man.

You are relaxed about the Government interfering in the independence of the judiciary, we know the Government is benevolent and would not dream of trying and we know that magistrates would stand up to illegal advice telling the
to ignore sentencing guidelines.

Anyone who disagrees and asks questions about what appear to be admissions by court clerks and HM Courts Service bypassing procedures designed to safeguard judicial independence is a conspiracy theorising nutter who is over-reacting?

Right?

113 – rinse and repeat:

My position is that it is outside the remit of the Courts Service to isue ‘instructions’ or ‘directives’ to magistrates on sentencing. It’s not something they have the power to do. So I’d be very surprised if that is what they did.

@timj

A very complacent view, given the facts that are currently in the public domain.

Tim says

“it is outside the remit of the Courts Service to issue ‘instructions’ or ‘directives’ to magistrates on sentencing. It’s not something they have the power to do.”

Magistrate says

“Our directive for anyone involved in the rioting is a custodial sentence. That is the directive we have had – it is a very serious matter.”

Explain please.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026239/UK-riots-Tear-sentencing-guidelines-jail-EVERY-looter-magistrates-told.html#ixzz1VCSfrpZQ

Magistrate says

“Our directive for anyone involved in the rioting is a custodial sentence. That is the directive we have had – it is a very serious matter.”

Explain please.

How about:

She later retracted her statement and said she was mortified to have used the term “directive”.

She later retracted her statement and said she was mortified to have used the term “directive”.

I’m sure she was, when she realised she had let the cat out of the bag!!!!

Couch it in what language you want- directive or guidance.

It is interference in the operation of the judiciary.

Hi, this point of view might not please the readers but anyone in Nicholas’ situation (walking home and finding rioting/looting taking place) had three basic choices:

1) Leave quickly (morally neutral)

2) Attempt to stop the looters or record evidence for police (morally active and possibly dangerous)

3) Join in

He choose option three and has now received a harsh sentence, but in truth how much sympathy can you have for him when most other people chose 1 or 2 and in some cases paid a much heavier price.

If further proof were needed that the judiciary are now – well, yes, running riot:

“Two men who posted messages on Facebook inciting other people to riot in their home towns have both been sentenced to four years in prison by a judge at Chester crown court.”

Compare and contrast with this one:

“A man who inflicted “catastrophic injuries” with a single punch in an unprovoked attack has been jailed for three years.”

So, permanently incapacitate an innocent bystander: three years
Put some words on a website: four years.

And there are still some here who insist that there’s no political element to what we’re seeing?

@120 Four years for a facebook post, absolutely disgusting.

Death threats on Facebook on the other hand get 3 months jail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html

‘Leading criminal barrister John Cooper QC said he believed the sentences were “over the top” and were likely to be overturned by the Court of Appeal. “What we need to remember here is that there’s a protocol for sentencing, and there are rules and procedures in sentencing which make them effective and make them fair. What we can’t do, in my view, in situations like this, is suddenly throw the rule book away simply because there’s a groundswell of opinion.” ‘

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14553330

Sentencing guidelines for riot are here. Inchoate offences attract the same tariffs.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/riot/

Maximum sentence 10 years. Incitement to riot – whether or not it succeeds – is a serious offence. That it’s done on facebook doesn’t detract from that.

Quote from Crown Court Judge:

In sentencing four other convicted Manchester rioters, a crown court judge, Andrew Gilbert QC, made clear why he was disregarding sentencing guidelines when he said “the offences of the night of 9 August … takes them completely outside the usual context of criminality”.

He added: “The principal purpose is that the courts should show that outbursts of criminal behaviour like this will be and must be met with sentences longer than they would be if the offences had been committed in isolation. For those reasons, I consider that the sentencing guidelines for specific offences are of much less weight in the context of the current case, and can properly be departed from.”

Or, as I said yesterday “taking part in civil disorder is considered a signficantly aggravating factor in otherwise minor offences”.

@timj

A drunken threat to riot posted on Facebook for a few hours is plainly 16 times more serious than a concerted period of bullying followed by a threat to murder?

The problem is political interference in the judiciary causing sentencing guidelines to be improperly torn up and disproportionate sentences given.

It will be very embarrassing for the Government – as well as extremely damaging to law and order as offenders would escape their proper punishment – if sentences are quashed on appeal due to the Government’s behaviour. Though on the plus side I’m sure “Human Rights” could be blamed (rather than failure on the part of the Government to follow the law) creating more support for repeal of the act. Yay!

Hooray for our new Government restoring civil liberties from the dark ages of New Labour!

A drunken threat to riot posted on Facebook for a few hours is plainly 16 times more serious than a concerted period of bullying followed by a threat to murder?

Hmm, a tricky question. Is riot more serious than harrassment? Oh, wait a minute – yes it is. One carries a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years, one six months.

It will be very embarrassing for the Government – as well as extremely damaging to law and order as offenders would escape their proper punishment – if sentences are quashed on appeal due to the Government’s behaviour.

A bit of a Spartan ‘if’ there. It will be hard, for instance, to demonstrate illegal Government interference in crown court trials by reference to an email sent to magistrates’ clerks. An email that pointed out precisely the legal position being taken by the judiciary.

125 – oh, and you know drunkenness isn’t a mitigating factor in any crime? More usually an aggravating one.

And from the horse’s mouth:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hhj-gilbart-qc-sentencing-remarks-r-v-carter-others.pdf

I have considered whether one can seek to apply the definitive guidelines of the recently established Sentencing Council or its predecessor Sentencing Guidelines Council where they exist (and they do so for offences of assault, robbery, burglary of commercial premises and theft). I have also had regard to the generic guidelines, such as those relating to discounts for guilty pleas. The guidelines of the Sentencing Council (which thus far relate to offences of assault) must be followed unless the judge gives reasons for not doing so. In the case of the guidelines of its predecessor, I am required to have regard to them, but may depart from them. Lest there be any doubt in the minds of the media, I have received no advice from anyone in Government or within the Court Service or anywhere else on how I am to treat the Guidelines for the purposes of these cases. Had I done so, I would have ignored it.

So, no Government interference…

The people of Manchester and Salford are all entitled to look to the law for protection and to the courts to punish those who behaved so outrageously. It would be wholly unreal therefore for me to have regard only to the specific acts which you committed as if they had been committed in isolation. In my judgment it would be a wholly wrong approach to take the acts of any individual participant on their own. Those acts were not committed in isolation and, as I have already indicated, it is a fact which substantially aggravates the gravity of this offence.

Oh. The civil disorder was a substantial aggravation.

The sentencing ranges for after trial are
a. Organiser of riot or commercial burglaries 8 years upwards
g. Theft of goods in street 1-4 years

@timj

This debate is going nowhere. I get that you see attempted political interference in the judiciary is ok and believe that it has had no impact on sentencing (perhaps base on ignoring the evidence it has?). And I also get that you believe this Government is benevolent and would not dream of breaking the law and think it is quite wrong to ask questions about it.

I await the Government being forced under FOI to publish the relevant correspondence between MoJ and the HM Courts Service, and between HM Courts Service and clerks (though I bet the “transparency” Government will find some exception to prevent themselves being held to account).

I also await the result of appeals of those sentenced under the Government’s ad hoc politically-determined retrospective sentencing guidelines.

129 – Or, as the judge said

Lest there be any doubt in the minds of the media, I have received no advice from anyone in Government or within the Court Service or anywhere else on how I am to treat the Guidelines for the purposes of these cases. Had I done so, I would have ignored it.

I get that you see attempted political interference in the judiciary is ok and believe that it has had no impact on sentencing (perhaps base on ignoring the evidence it has?).

Have you read that judgement? And you know the difference between judges and magistrates right? Can you understand why magistrates’ clerks might be sent legal guidance to remind the magistrates? (hint: they have no actual legal qualifications).

As a start, try this bit of the judgement:

I have had regard to the decisions of the Court of Appeal which relate to the major disorder in Bradford in 2001, and in particular the decisions in R v Chapman [2002] EWCA Crim 2346 and R v Najeeb and others [2003] EWCA Crim 194.

The fact is that when I said “this is probably very little more than a reminder to magistrates’ clerks that taking part in civil disorder should be considered a substantially aggravating factor in any charge (for extremely good and well-established public policy reasons) and that this factor ought to be borne in mind when sentencing.” it looks like I was more or less exactly accurate.

@timj

Let’s just accept what the Government and judges are saying about there being no political pressure and move on. Evidence from court clerks and magistrates they have was them just misspeaking.

We should not ask any questions. The Government would not lie.

132 – Let’s just accept that you went into an hysterical fit of the vapours based on extremely limited information, little knowledge of the legal system and an underlying dislike of the Government.

@timj

I am amused that you accuse me of limited knowledge of the judicial system when you seem to think ripping up sentencing guidelines in response to a plea from Cameron to jail all rioters and looters is apparently legal and when you seem to be entirely relaxed about attempted political interference in the judiciary bypassing the Sentencing Council.

Not sure pagar would agree with your ad hominum attack either – I may be of centre-left views like many Lib Dems (who are supposedly part of the government) but pagar (who makes the same points) most certainly is not.

you seem to think ripping up sentencing guidelines in response to a plea from Cameron to jail all rioters and looters is apparently legal

Just read the judgement.

The guidelines of the Sentencing Council (which thus far relate to offences of assault) must be followed unless the judge gives reasons for not doing so. In the case of the guidelines of its predecessor, I am required to have regard to them, but may depart from them

Four years for a facebook post, they were railroaded into pleading guilty with threats of ten years, and what length of time have our ‘expense claimers’, phone hackers, fraudulent bankers and corrupt trigger-happy policemen served behind bars for dipping their corpulent snouts into the troths?

Those of us who believe that central government has increasingly encroached upon our civil liberties over the last few years should be very worried by the events of the last week. Because, by interfering with the independence of the judiciary and insisting on harsh sentences for those involved in crimes related to the recent riots, Cameron has driven a coach and horses through the UK constitution and demolished one of the principal pillars on which it is supported.

The Rule of Law is the critical last line of defence for civil liberties, ensuring each of us an entitlement to a free and fair trial. It is our guarantee of independently administered justice, free from political influence.

Yesterday it was reported in the Evening Standard that, in a case in Camberwell Green

“the chairwoman of the bench told lawyers she had received instructions to jail all rioters….The court clerk, Claire Luxford later said magistrates had been emailed by a manager within the HM Courts and Tribunals Service telling them to ignore normal guidelines.”

The Telegraph also reported that

“The guidance for tougher penalties was issued amid growing concerns that courts were being soft on offenders. Looters and rioters walked free last week in a series of cases, including David Atoh, 18, who admitted stealing two designer T-shirts in Hackney, east London.

A magistrate told him the two days he spent in a cell awaiting his hearing was adequate punishment and freed him. Despite Mr Cameron’s pledge that young offenders would face punishment, a string of juvenile criminals were allowed to return home to their parents.”

But following the Ministry of Justice directive, referred to above, almost everyone coming before the courts for riot related offences was getting significant jail sentences, even for crimes like stealing water or receiving a stolen pair of shorts. Undoubtedly, this tougher sentencing will have been popular with the public, and the cynical might suspect that is why Cameron has made sure it happened, but an important principle has been broken here.

Because it is now clear that, in the UK, the judiciary is NOT, after all, independent of the executive arm of government. The sentencing guidelines in these cases have been overturned by central government edict meaning that our system of independent justice itself has, itself, been subverted and that our citizens can no longer be guaranteed a fair trial. That is pretty serious for us all, and by subverting the Rule of Law in this way I believe the government has acted quite unconstitutionally.

Incidentally, had the CPS seen fit to charge offenders with the crime of riot, and they had, subsequently, been fairly convicted in court, and the judge had handed down a maximum 10 year sentence, I would have had no objection whatever.

Bur clearly it was simpler to ignore the constitutional rights of our citizens and lock them up on David Cameron’s whim…………..

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

The sentencing guidelines in these cases have been overturned by central government edict meaning that our system of independent justice itself has, itself, been subverted and that our citizens can no longer be guaranteed a fair trial.

This is just nonsense. Really, honestly nonsense. Circumstances of violent civil disorder are enough of an aggravating factor that minor street thefts will carry a presumption of a custodial sentence. That’s just the law – as in, there’s direct precedent on point. On that basis, issuing fines or cautions to looters/rioters would be an inappropriately lenient sentence. It’s the CPS that should be appealing such sentences.

The job of the magistrate’s clerk is to advise the magistrate on the law. I suspect (as I’ve said repeatedly) that this famous message was a reminder of just this point – ‘the background of the rioting is likely to be enough of an aggravating factor to take the suitable sentence above magistrate’s powers to sentence it. Please refer to crown courts for sentencing’.

And when these cases get to the crown courts, what do the judges say?

“In my judgment it would be a wholly wrong approach to take the acts of any individual participant on their own. Those acts were not committed in isolation and, as I have already indicated, it is a fact which substantially aggravates the gravity of this offence.”

There really is nothing unconstitutional about the Ministry of Justice giving guidance to mags’ clerks about what the law is.

Circumstances of violent civil disorder are enough of an aggravating factor that minor street thefts will carry a presumption of a custodial sentence. That’s just the law – as in, there’s direct precedent on point. On that basis, issuing fines or cautions to looters/rioters would be an inappropriately lenient sentence

Agreed.

But it’s not within the remit of the executive to tell magistrates to jail offenders.

Even if they don’t know the law.

But it’s not within the remit of the executive to tell magistrates to jail offenders.

But it is within the remit of the executive to issue guidance to magistrates’ clerks reminding them what the law is.

4 years for a facebook comment – as Mr Bumble said, the law is an ass.

Whatever happened to the concept of proportionality?

Oh finally, a legal authority waking up to the kangaroo arrangements?

According to Lord Carlile, “the sacrosanct separation of powers between the government and the judiciary had appeared to have been breached by some of the messages coming out of government since the riots engulfed neighbourhoods last week”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/england-riots-ministers-wrong-courts-carlile

Lord C says, “just filling up prisons” would not contribute to maintaining the peace of England’s streets, and warned that there were too many first-time offenders who had been remanded in custody on relatively minor offences after the events who would be eligible to appeal for bail”. – “It comes amid growing concerns over the length of prison sentences being handed down for riot-related offences after two men in Chester were jailed for four years for posting messages on Facebook inciting people to create disorder in their home towns despite the fact that the riots didn’t take place” (same source).

Perhaps we need to lock up a few rabid magistrates as well?

Perhaps we need to lock up a few rabid magistrates as well?

You know magistrates can only jail people for six months for one offence?

[143] once upon a time it might have been 6 months but now under the exciting new arrangements instigated by the tories, sorry I meant coalition, it has been extended to 6 years.

In any event my understanding of the law seems to be on a par with whichever legal figure decided to bang somebody up for 4 years for a Facebook message in a locality that did not even suffer any rioting (which, as I am sure you are well was the entire point of comment rather than a pointless bit of pedantry).

Perhaps somebody might be brave enough to explain why Dave Cameron, sorry the judge felt such a vindictive sentence was necessary?

@timj

“There really is nothing unconstitutional about the Ministry of Justice giving guidance to mags’ clerks about what the law is”

True – but there really is something unconstitutional about the Ministry of Justice giving guidance to mags’ clerks to ignore what the law is and advise magistrates to rip up sentencing guidelines and jail all before them for sentencing.

As the senior judiciary now appears to be waking up to.

One question which needs to be asked is, why that directive (oops, sorry, I mean ‘advice’) was issued to magistrates’ clerks precisely at that point in time, bearing in mind that Cameron and other politicians had been going on about how desirable it was for anyone convicted of anything which might be vaguely connected to the riots to be imprisoned irrespective of the facts of the case. Even if it wasn’t direct political interference, then the ‘message’ wouldn’t have needed much deciphering.

TimJ @128:

Perhaps His Honour didn’t get the memo?

TimJ @143:

Perhaps they can only pass sentences of up to six months after a conviction, but what they can certainly do is order someone to be imprisoned without trial for various lengths of time, which has the potential to cost the defendants their jobs or homes (should they have them) before they’ve even had the chance to face trial. The figures that I have seen indicate that 60% of all the accused appearing before the London beaks were sent to prison to await either trial or sentencing at the Crown Court, and that this compares starkly with the 2010 average of 10%. Another message is clearly being sent here.

(Yes, I know that in theory the Crown Court could grant bail for those still awaiting trial; but given that the magistrates would already have denied bail to the accused, the Crown Court is not likely to be disposed to do so, especially in the current febrile atmosphere).

One interesting – and deeply worrying – aspect of all this is the way that it may have given an indication of the true nature of the English judiciary (at all levels) when they are given free rein without the constraints that the well-established sentencing guidelines would normally impose upon them. Once off the leash, they seem to have turned into a bunch of spiteful, vindictive class warriors. A useful data point for us all, I think.

True – but there really is something unconstitutional about the Ministry of Justice giving guidance to mags’ clerks to ignore what the law is and advise magistrates to rip up sentencing guidelines and jail all before them for sentencing.

Have you been reading anything I’ve been writing? If the advice was that the background of civil disorder is likely to be a sufficiently aggravating factor to warrant ignoring normal sentencing guidelines, then that’s a statement of what the law is, and not a demand for the law to be ignored. There’s a distinction between ‘sentencing guidelines’ and ‘mandatory sentencing’ that you seem to be ignoring.

The figures that I have seen indicate that 60% of all the accused appearing before the London beaks were sent to prison to await either trial or sentencing at the Crown Court, and that this compares starkly with the 2010 average of 10%. Another message is clearly being sent here.

It’s the same message. Magistrates only have the power to jail people for six months or less. In circumstances where crown courts are handing down substantially longer sentences, magistrates will refer the cases up to the crown court for sentencing.

In any event my understanding of the law seems to be on a par with whichever legal figure decided to bang somebody up for 4 years for a Facebook message in a locality that did not even suffer any rioting (which, as I am sure you are well was the entire point of comment rather than a pointless bit of pedantry).

I’m sure you’re every bit as knowledgeable about the law as a Crown Court judge. So you’ll know all about the law of incitement.

As ever on this site, fury seems to be inversely correlated to the level of actual knowledge of the subject. I wonder if that’s a universal theme.

[147] “There’s a distinction between ‘sentencing guidelines’ and ‘mandatory sentencing” – a distinction the courts seem to be only dimly aware of given the spate of heavy sentencing being handed out in almost all cases.

I suppose the question to answer is why are heavy sentences are being handed out in such a uniform way – it’s as though those responsible are all reading the same exactly script before concluding that they have but one option – jail?

I suppose we should thankful at least that we are not living in age when it was possible to deport miscreants to the colonies, or worse?

[148] still not willing to have a go at explaining why a Facebook message, sorry incitement should be punished by 4 years in jail – perhaps such convoluted reasoning can only be understood by a clever judge?

@timj

Yes – it’s all been “trust the Government”…

I understand that the state feels a need to defend itself and feels threatened when its citizens riot- a riot is a direct challenge to the state because it threatens its monopoly of the means of violence. Incidentally it feels equally threatened when citizens combine to protect their own property.

But this insecurity is already reflected in the fact that there is a potential 10 year jail tariff for the offence of rioting and it is not constitutional for politicians to direct, advise or solicit the judiciary to impose severe sentences. Nor is it correct that politicians comment on sentences or congratulate severity.

To do so threatens the notional “separation of powers” that is the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution and thus threatens civil liberty. The fact that we have arrived at a situation where this does not seem strange or unusual does not mean it is any the less dangerous.

Where is Shami Chakrabarti when we need her?

still not willing to have a go at explaining why a Facebook message, sorry incitement should be punished by 4 years in jail

Because it was incitement to riot, an offence that carries a maximum tariff of 10 years. The medium isn’t really the point. The message went out to 400+ people – if he’d shouted it on a street corner through a megaphone, or called for it from a pulpit he’d have reached a smaller audience.

The penalty may be harsh – and I’m sure there’ll be an appeal – but given the offence (to which they pleaded guilty) it’s hardly grossly disproportionate. The internet is real life. It has consequences.

@152. pagar: “Where is Shami Chakrabarti when we need her?”

The Liberty (NCCL) blog now has three posts about the riots, in up on yesterday. As I commented previously, Liberty appear to be on holiday.

—
The Magistrate’s blog links to a court report for one of the trials in Manchester, in which a senior Judge outlines his thoughts on sentencing:
http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-horses-mouth.html

The sentencing range outlined by Judge is robust, but he makes it clear that he came to them on his own. That’s fine by me as long as everyone passing sentence has such independence of mind.

Alex Carlile who is no push over has questioned whether some sentences will be maintained following appeal. He has also suggested that more moderate guidelines will emerge after a few appeals have been conducted.

[153] so let’s get this straight some idiot posts a stupid message on Facebook – it goes to court and the judge after a bit of chin rubbing, and with the power to jail the men for 10 years, finally settles on 4 years – presumably if the offender was called Bowie he might have got 5 years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=louXPUW7tHU

I know I’m not a judge but this seems like an abuse of power to me since an impromptu message does not in any way equate to violent incitement (which usually entails planning, obtaining resources, identifying targets for specific members of the group, a group that might have been inducted into a political school of thought, bolstered by certain types of rhetoric, etc) – the message was no more than an act of stupidity and I feel it is very wrong that such stupidity should be dealt with by compliant legal figures who seem unable to exercise a bit of common sense.

so let’s get this straight some idiot posts a stupid message on Facebook – it goes to court and the judge after a bit of chin rubbing, and with the power to jail the men for 10 years, finally settles on 4 years

Read the judgement if you’re that interested. I’m sure it’s up somewhere. And maybe consider the fact that a lot of the looting and disorder was organised via facebook, sms and blackberry messenger. Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t mean it’s not real. That’s a lesson a whole lot of armchair insurrectionists could do with learning.

[156] oh, I see – so people were sitting at home, perhaps just about to settle down to a nice cup of tea, when an impromptu message flashes up on Facebook – but instead of ignoring these 2 dimwits they all rise up like mindless zombies grunting in unison “kill the pigs – kill the pigs”.
http://zombiator.webs.com/aleksi_zombies_boxcover_600_600.jpg

Yes, a brief message on a computer aimed at random members of the public is definitely the sort of incitement that can only be dealt with by a very long period in jail in my book – in fact such is the power of Facebook incitement I might put a new message out asking the same gullible punters to bring as much cash as they can to a secret location in North London – what sort of, erm, guidance do you think the tories, sorry coalition (which allegedly includes liberals) will give to the courts for that sort of wheeze, eh?

@156. Tim J: “That’s a lesson a whole lot of armchair insurrectionists could do with learning.”

The only revolutions that pagar, the a&e charge nurse or I fantasise about are those of the washing machine. We have dreams about a world in which the automatic washing machine is literally automatic.

I see – so people were sitting at home, perhaps just about to settle down to a nice cup of tea, when an impromptu message flashes up on Facebook – but instead of ignoring these 2 dimwits they all rise up like mindless zombies grunting in unison “kill the pigs – kill the pigs”.

I know, the idea that some sort of civil disorder could be organised and communicated through social media is completely unbelievable isn’t it? Could never happen. Stupid idea.

[159] so the bar has been set – all those others who texted or sent blackberry messages, or communicated via Facebook (100′s or possibly 1,000′s I’m told) are all looking at as long 10 years in prison?

Have got enough jails for them all – or will the judges be receiving further, err, guidance given how patently loony this pattern of sentencing is?

so the bar has been set – all those others who texted or sent blackberry messages, or communicated via Facebook (100?s or possibly 1,000?s I’m told) are all looking at as long 10 years in prison?

I don’t see what your confusion is with this. On the evidence seen by the court, the judge decided that these particular incidents were sufficiently serious to warrant pretty heavy custodial sentences. You can, of course, disagree with him. But you’re doing so on the basis of little or no actual knowledge of the facts. There have been other cases where judges have decided that the attempts at incitement weren’t seriously meant and people have received non-custodial sentences (one was just told to write a letter of apology). Cases will depend on their own individual facts.

@153. Tim J: “The message went out to 400+ people – if he’d shouted it on a street corner through a megaphone, or called for it from a pulpit he’d have reached a smaller audience.”

You have identified a key point.

If an idiot posts incitement to riot on Facebook to 400+ people, those people could be anywhere in the world. And it is highly likely that some of those people will advise the author to remove the statement or to report the author to the police. If 300 people rebroadcast the incitement message, the riot is even less likely to occur because the police will clean it all up in minutes.

If an idiot turns up at a highly charged demo and calls for riot through a megaphone, the recipients of the message can only be present at the demo. The message is directed rather than widely broadcast and is more likely to cause disorder. Which is where the sentencing guideline for incitement to riot comes from; the guideline precedes mass mobile communication systems and is not pertinent for “incitement over the internet”.

Remember also that you have defended more severe sentences for those found guilty of property thefts in the course of a riot. I agree with the principle, but not with the severity. However if you believe that “acts during the course of a riot” are significant in sentencing, then “acts away from a riot” require different sentencing. You can’t have one without the other.

However if you believe that “acts during the course of a riot” are significant in sentencing, then “acts away from a riot” require different sentencing. You can’t have one without the other.

Except that the court explicitly said that the fact that the incitement to riot took place in the context of civil disorder it was not an ‘act away from a riot’ but an act that was intimately related to the riots.

@161. Tim J: “On the evidence seen by the court, the judge decided that these particular incidents were sufficiently serious to warrant pretty heavy custodial sentences.”

In the rush for processing rather than justice, it is probable that the Facebook rioters were assessed by a Judge who is not an expert on the internet or social media. It is likely that when the appeals come around, the two guilty idiots will have barristers who are experts in social media law; everyone who wears a gown in those courts will be clued up on social media.

As many of us said when this thread started, the rush is very worrying.

Irrespective of whether it was a bottle of water or TV, anyone caught participating in looting, rioting or theft should be dealt with in a manner that deters such actions by others in the future.

So it may be that a few are dealt punishments that otherwise seem harsh but if it results with society respecting laws and actually thinking twice before stealing and joining in with crime waves/mobs then so be it.

Why did Mr Robinson not choose to help up with the clean up and doing his part it stopping the looting. May be he can put his 6 months to use and write a piece for a blog or magazine explaining the difference between right and wrong.

Oh finally, a legal authority waking up to the kangaroo arrangements?

According to Lord Carlile, “the sacrosanct separation of powers between the government and the judiciary had appeared to have been breached by some of the messages coming out of government since the riots engulfed neighbourhoods last week”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/england-riots-ministers-wrong-courts-carlile

Yes, listen to Carlile, our beloved defender of… er… house arrest for people suspected of but not charged with terrorism.

[166] oh, what an utterly tedious tactic, dismissing a valid criticism because a commentator has been found wanting in the court of perfection.

If Carlile doesn’t meet the rarified standards expected by UKL then how about Lord Macdonald or Simon Hughes?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/riots-sentence-liberal-democrats-conservatives

I can barely contain myself waiting to hear how Macca & Hughesy are not saints either.

[166] oh, what an utterly tedious tactic, dismissing a valid criticism because a commentator has been found wanting in the court of perfection.

It wasn’t that, it was about your citing him as an authority on liberty. Remember, this is a man who supported the government being able to point the finger at a person and have him indefinitely detained in his house for 16 hours a day (if not more). It’s hardly about “rarified standards” or “the court of perfection”.

We don’t need him to agree that some of these sentences appear excessive.

[168] “It wasn’t that, it was about your citing him as an authority on liberty” – I said no such thing – I said he was a legal authority who had spoken out about sentencing.

Surely it’s not that difficult to understand the difference?

I see from wiki Carlile was the first Member of Parliament to campaign for the rights of transsexuals – perhaps this has a bearing on his recent utterances as well?

The Guardian have belatedly cottoned onto the political interference issue and now have an article up from Vera Baird http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/18/riots-sentencing-courts

Sevillista,

The Guardian have belatedly cottoned onto the political interference issue and now have an article up from Vera Baird http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/18/riots-sentencing-courts

Haha.

Government minister Vera Baird has been forced to apologise for suggesting that the judge in the Sweeney paedophile case got the sentencing “wrong”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5096266.stm

@ukliberty

What’s your point?

Vera Baird is hypocritical on this? That’s quite probably true, but doesn’t detract from the argument in the piece that attempted political interference in the judiciary is a bad thing.

Unless your argument is “Political interference in the judiciary is ok as New Labour tried to do it too”?

And it appears Baird’s after-the-event comment on sentencing was successfully resisted and led to her being strongly criticised and forced to apologise (in contrast to the current lot brazenly commenting on apparently weak initial sentences and then apparently issuing directives ripping up sentencing guidelines with pride).

On the narrow party political point, it is interesting that the bollocking, slapdown and forced apology was delivered by a Labour cabinet member and not the then opposition.

Sevillista,

What’s your point?

That these ‘authorities’ being cited are hardly strangers to interfering with the criminal justice system (and to its detriment). Who we will hear from next? John Reid? David Blunkett? Tony Blair?

You do not need such people to make your case.

And it appears Baird’s after-the-event comment on sentencing was successfully resisted and led to her being strongly criticised and forced to apologise (in contrast to the current lot brazenly commenting on apparently weak initial sentences and then apparently issuing directives ripping up sentencing guidelines with pride).

I think it took her about a week, so give them time, eh? (Assuming they did anything of the kind.)

On the narrow party political point, it is interesting that the bollocking, slapdown and forced apology was delivered by a Labour cabinet member and not the then opposition.

ISTM the Lord Chancellor was obliged to deliver a bollocking given that one of his responsibilities is to defend the independence of the courts.

@ukliberty

I agree there are better people to make the case.

But the points she makes are all good ones regardless of any hypocrisy in making them.

@ukliberty

And I’m sure authoritarian New Labour figures you cite are supportive of the Government’s interference in any case