Riot-related jail terms must be balanced against justice and proportionality, say campaigners
Civil liberties groups have warned that the court system will be clogged with appeals by people convicted of riot-related offences seeking to overturn lengthy terms of imprisonment.
"We know the courts are swamped with cases and handing down hurried and overly punitive sentences [that] will result in many criminal appeals which will act as a further drag on the system," said Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns for the Howard League for Penal Reform.
"While it is understandable that the courts have been asked to treat the public disturbances as an aggravating factor, this should be balanced against the key principle of criminal justice – that of proportionality."
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales, which produces guidelines for judges, has not met since the riots and insisted on Wednesday that there had been no discussions regarding the appropriate sentencing of rioters. The Ministry of Justice also denied asking the council to amend its guidance on future unrest.
Gillian Guy, a solicitor and member of the council and chief executive of the Citizens Advice Bureau, said that if magistrates had been told to disregard the guidelines, "then they must be satisfied that to apply the guidelines would be contrary to the interests of justice".
She added: "There's not one sentence for each crime. There has to be a range, because there are various factors that come into play. There's room within the range to take into account … other activity that's going on. We look for consistency and fairness and whether people understand what's going on."
But there was further evidence of sentencing inconsistency when it emerged that a 19-year-old from Bream, in Gloucestershire, who posted messages on Facebook encouraging people to vandalise a local shop during last week's riots, had not been brought to court – in contrast to two youths jailed for a similar offence at Chester crown court on Tuesday.
Joshua Moulinie had posted a message on his Facebook wall urging people to damage the Spar store in Bream. He was told to write a letter of apology to the shop owner by way of punishment. He has since posted defiant comments on Facebook, saying he was not sorry for the remarks.
"It was a very, very blatant joke, I'm not sorry at all for it," he wrote. "I'm sorry for the reaction it caused, but not for the action. Also can I make it very clear I never intended to riot? The police are sound. I have no problems whatsoever with them, they didn't even charge me."
The solicitor representing Jordan Blackshaw, 20, who was jailed for four years at Chester crown court for posting Facebook messages, confirmed he would be appealing against the sentence. Chris Johnson said: "Jordan originally set up the Facebook site for a joke, which he accepts was in bad taste and inappropriate, and he is remorseful."
When assessing a sentence, judges are entitled to take the need for deterrence into account. According to the Sentencing Council's standard list of the five purposes of sentencing, "the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)" comes second after "punishment of offenders".
It states: "This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence)".
Since the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 judges have been instructed that they "must follow" sentencing guidelines rather than merely "have regard to" them. They can still disregard them where they believe following them would be "contrary to the interests of justice", but they must explicitly state their reasons.
Sentences confirmed by the Court of Appeal following the Bradford riots of 2001 show that the judges have previously upheld relatively long sentences against those convicted of public order offences. One man with no previous relevant convictions was sentenced to 4 years and nine months in jail for holding a metal bar and occasionally throwing stones at police lines.
The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that no one has yet been charged with rioting following last week's disturbances. The offence, which is complex to prove, requires 12 people or more to be engaged in a common purpose.
In Tottenham, a father who fled his burning flat with his two children after it was attacked by rioters has called for proportionate sentencing and said prison for small-time looters "will not solve anything". Community worker Mohamed Hammoudan, 46, lost all his belongings in the fire that destroyed the Allied Carpets building in Tottenham, north London, on the first night of rioting on 7 August. "We can't just use this, [prison sentences] as a blanket way of resolving social problems," he said.
The Ministry of Justice defended the apparent disparity in sentencing in some offences. "Magistrates and judges are independent of government," a spokesperson said. "Their sentencing decisions are based on the individual circumstances of each case and offender. That is why different offenders may be given different sentences for what might appear to be similar crimes.
"To provide a consistent base for these decisions an independent body of experts, the Sentencing Council, set guidelines. These provide a range of sentences that could be given for particular types of crime, including theft, burglary or robbery."
Civil liberties groups have warned that the court system will be clogged with appeals by people convicted of riot-related offences seeking to overturn lengthy terms of imprisonment.
"We know the courts are swamped with cases and handing down hurried and overly punitive sentences [that] will result in many criminal appeals which will act as a further drag on the system," said Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns for the Howard League for Penal Reform.
"While it is understandable that the courts have been asked to treat the public disturbances as an aggravating factor, this should be balanced against the key principle of criminal justice – that of proportionality."
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales, which produces guidelines for judges, has not met since the riots and insisted on Wednesday that there had been no discussions regarding the appropriate sentencing of rioters. The Ministry of Justice also denied asking the council to amend its guidance on future unrest.
Gillian Guy, a solicitor and member of the council and chief executive of the Citizens Advice Bureau, said that if magistrates had been told to disregard the guidelines, "then they must be satisfied that to apply the guidelines would be contrary to the interests of justice".
She added: "There's not one sentence for each crime. There has to be a range, because there are various factors that come into play. There's room within the range to take into account … other activity that's going on. We look for consistency and fairness and whether people understand what's going on."
But there was further evidence of sentencing inconsistency when it emerged that a 19-year-old from Bream, in Gloucestershire, who posted messages on Facebook encouraging people to vandalise a local shop during last week's riots, had not been brought to court – in contrast to two youths jailed for a similar offence at Chester crown court on Tuesday.
Joshua Moulinie had posted a message on his Facebook wall urging people to damage the Spar store in Bream. He was told to write a letter of apology to the shop owner by way of punishment. He has since posted defiant comments on Facebook, saying he was not sorry for the remarks.
"It was a very, very blatant joke, I'm not sorry at all for it," he wrote. "I'm sorry for the reaction it caused, but not for the action. Also can I make it very clear I never intended to riot? The police are sound. I have no problems whatsoever with them, they didn't even charge me."
The solicitor representing Jordan Blackshaw, 20, who was jailed for four years at Chester crown court for posting Facebook messages, confirmed he would be appealing against the sentence. Chris Johnson said: "Jordan originally set up the Facebook site for a joke, which he accepts was in bad taste and inappropriate, and he is remorseful."
When assessing a sentence, judges are entitled to take the need for deterrence into account. According to the Sentencing Council's standard list of the five purposes of sentencing, "the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)" comes second after "punishment of offenders".
It states: "This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence)".
Since the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 judges have been instructed that they "must follow" sentencing guidelines rather than merely "have regard to" them. They can still disregard them where they believe following them would be "contrary to the interests of justice", but they must explicitly state their reasons.
Sentences confirmed by the Court of Appeal following the Bradford riots of 2001 show that the judges have previously upheld relatively long sentences against those convicted of public order offences. One man with no previous relevant convictions was sentenced to 4 years and nine months in jail for holding a metal bar and occasionally throwing stones at police lines.
The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that no one has yet been charged with rioting following last week's disturbances. The offence, which is complex to prove, requires 12 people or more to be engaged in a common purpose.
In Tottenham, a father who fled his burning flat with his two children after it was attacked by rioters has called for proportionate sentencing and said prison for small-time looters "will not solve anything". Community worker Mohamed Hammoudan, 46, lost all his belongings in the fire that destroyed the Allied Carpets building in Tottenham, north London, on the first night of rioting on 7 August. "We can't just use this, [prison sentences] as a blanket way of resolving social problems," he said.
The Ministry of Justice defended the apparent disparity in sentencing in some offences. "Magistrates and judges are independent of government," a spokesperson said. "Their sentencing decisions are based on the individual circumstances of each case and offender. That is why different offenders may be given different sentences for what might appear to be similar crimes.
"To provide a consistent base for these decisions an independent body of experts, the Sentencing Council, set guidelines. These provide a range of sentences that could be given for particular types of crime, including theft, burglary or robbery."
No comments:
Post a Comment