Here We Go Again (3)

There is a crisis in knife crime. So the Prime Minister is going to tackle it.
Righty-ho Mr. PM, sir;
What plan will you work out this weekend that has evaded the rest of us over the years?
What will you do that could make a shred of difference to London's underclass, starting Monday?
Why didn't you do it last week? Or last year?
Won't this just serve to distract senior police from getting on with their job?
Just how stupid do you think we are?

Deliberate Misinformation

The Daily Express, which laughably describes itself as The World's Greatest Newspaper, has this to say:

The recommendation of the Sentencing Advisory Panel that many burglars should be spared jail terms and instead directed towards disorganised, feeble community sentences will boost the morale of housebreakers everywhere.

For burglary in a dwelling only unforced entry and unaggravated low value theft has a guideline starting point less than custody - that's something like a walk-in through an open door and a theft of items worth a few pounds. Anything else means custody, and the threshold for sending to the Crown Court is low. Three domestic burglaries make the offender subject to a minimum sentence. Here is the CPS summary of the sentencing regime.
What the Express wants people to think is that the sterotypical burglar (they use the archaic term 'housebreaker') who forces entry to a home and steals valuables will get a community penalty. He won't. Magistrates would probably refuse to touch the case and send it off to the Crown Court, where the burglar could expect a substantial sentence. Burglary is one of those offences that covers a very wide spectrum, from reaching in an open window to steal a bottle of milk, to a full-on night-time break-in with a substantial haul of valuables, and the range of sentences reflects this, as it should. I resent the drip-drip of deliberate Press distortion designed to feed the isn't-this-country-rubbish and the aren't-the-judiciary-a-useless-lot-of-old-duffers canards. But you don't buy the Express to find out the truth, do you?

Grief Exploited

This BBC report is an example of a really difficult decision, for prosecutors and for the bench concerned. For one thing it is a highly unusual case, of the kind that turns up once every few years at most, so there is no reservoir of experience or case law on which to draw. All I know of this case has been gleaned from the press, but I think it is fair to assume that this cyclist was riding fast, on the pavement, and in a manner that regarded pedestrians as an intrusion upon his desired course. The unfortunate victim died in a way that is fluky, albeit fairly common, by falling and hitting her head on the hard ground. Her family, naturally, are devastated, but as is today's custom they were not allowed to gather together with their friends and supporters to mourn and to come to terms with their loss, but rather challenged by the press to say 'how they felt'.
Well how the hell would you or I feel? Numb from grief, some of us might seek vengeance, some might look to the law for redress, some might draw upon their faith to forgive.
The CPS prosecutor who decided upon the charge will have considered the law (not much help, since most of these cases involve Mrs. Miggins being knocked away from her shopping trolley or some such) and will have considered the awful consequences of this incident; I am sure that the CPS charging guidelines were carefully consulted too.
Put yourself in the prosecutor's shoes, and in those of the bench. Emotions are running high, the press are milling outside in the lobby, and the leader writers are honing their pencils ready for a denunciation.
The offence carries a limited maximum fine - nothing else is available. The amount is a massive one by magistrates' standards. So the offender 'walks free from court' and the tabloids explode in their wrath. If my experience is anything to go by, the court's mailbox will receive two or three dozen abusive letters in the next few days.
One final point: some idiot has just demanded a new offence making dangerous cycling on a par with dangerous driving. The awful tragedy we have just been looking at doesn't change the old axiom that hard cases make bad law.

News From Whitehall

The Government has announced a revision to the new Sentencing Guidelines, a month before they are introduced, and before some of us have even received a copy. The new Guidelines régime provides for a balanced Sentencing Advisory Panel to make proposals to the full Sentencing Guidelines Council. Once the Guideline is approved courts must have regard to it, and give reasons for any divergence.
The Court of Appeal's judgment a few weeks ago tweaked the existing guidelines, so I presume that we are supposed to give as our reason for ratcheting up penalties "because Sir Igor Judge said so".
As usual it all smacks of a hasty quick-fix to grab a headline, just like the anonymous witness business that is highly likely to fall foul of the ECHR in the near future.
I do wish the Government would try a bit of quiet reflection before going in with its great flat feet.
Later:- I think that I heard a BBC report that Mr. Straw has conceded that he has no power to change the Guidelines since the SCG is independent. Typical shoot-from-the-hip rubbish.

Can We Do Better?

Martin Kelly has a piece on his blog suggesting some pub names for today's society. He suggests:-

Pub Names For A Violent 21st Century

The Dogger and Duck

The Royal Soak

The Happy Slapper

The Sights and Crosshairs

The Bomb and Burqa

Do any of our regulars fancy having a go?

The best I could do (while wincing at my wife's noisy support for Federer in the next room) was:-

The King's Armaments

The Roach and Rizla

The Robin Hoody

The Puke of Cambridge

The Yob and Bouncer

The Red Bull and Vodka

I am sure you can do as well as Martin. Any offers?

Genuine Question

We all know that Islam forbids the drinking of alcohol. Can anyone tell me what the Islamic teaching is on the use of heroin?
The question occurred to me because Afghanistan, which has many devout Muslims, presumably bans alcohol while being the centre of the heroin trade.

Reflections

A few days ago I had to tell a young man that he was going inside for his first custodial sentence. We sentenced him by the book, and we had a recent Court of Appeal ruling to guide us. The three of us on the bench were completely satisfied that custody was the only proper sentence, but we nevertheless ran through the structure one last time to be sure. We then wrote out our reasons, and called out the clerk to check the legals, and to alert the jailers to come up to the court door and await a signal to come in.
I told him crisply and factually that he was going into custody, and why. He looked impassive. His mother burst into tears and his father looked grim. The officers ushered him towards the steel staircase, and they will have handcuffed him as soon as the door shut behind them. As he went through the door he turned to me and spat out "Tosser!" in what he no doubt thought was a venomous fashion, his unaccustomed composure discarded. That night he would be in a reception cell, wondering fearfully how he would cope with his fellow inmates the next day. He wouldn't be calling any of them Tossers.
We did what we had to do, and I am completely comfortable that the sentence was right.

I didn't like it though.

It is an awesome thing to send a young man inside, especially for the first time. I accept the necessity of doing it when I have to, and I never shrink from the task when it is the right thing to do.
I can already hear the more punitive of our readers muttering "what about the victims?" and I want them to understand that to try to understand a criminal does not exclude sympathy for the victims - in fact, this particular sentence was driven mainly by the crime's impact on the victims.
So I felt a bit flat as I drove home. Intellectually, I was perfectly happy that we had done our duty. Personally, I felt a sense of waste, along with a not-too-sure hope that the boy might at last take a hint. Experience does not make me optimistic.

Not As Clever As He Thought?

This tale speaks for itself.

Judgement Call 2

A young man has just been refused admission to a medical school because he has a conviction for burglary, acquired when he was younger. The college has said that it is protecting the integrity of the profession, and I can understand that. Only a few weeks ago I had to sign a certificate of good character for a young man seeking admission to one of the Inns of Court - despite the cheap cynicism that has become the fashion these days the great professions of this country still deserve the public's trust.
On the other hand, having heard the young man being interviewed, I can see why he was turned down, since he seems to think that he has been harshly treated - I suspect that he talked himself out of his college place by trying to present himself as a victim.
And yet - the practice of demanding CRB checks from all and sundry, soon to extend to nearly half the population, means that many will pay a high price for the kind of youthful foolishness that most of us have got away with in the past.

Thanks to Jeremy for this link.

Here's a piece from the Telegraph.

Judgement Call 1

I have been listening to the radio, and two stories have emerged today, each illustrating a finely balanced dilemma. First is the plan to ban alcohol sales in a part of Devon in anticipation of an Internet-organised mass party. On the one hand, we all know about the real and increasing problem of drunken misbehaviour, one that blights the late-night streets of many towns. On the other hand this is a free country, and we are free to go wherever we choose, and to drink alcohol, provided we are of legal age to do so. If, having gone somewhere and drunk alcohol, we misbehave, then we do so at our peril and can and should be punished for it.
Torquay magistrates will be asked to rule on the ban, for which I can see the pros and cons.
Taking off my judicial hat for a moment, I recall an incident during the miners' strike when I was on my way to Nottingham on business, and I was stopped at a police roadblock, where an officer asked me where I was going, presumably for fear of my being a flying picket or some such. I had a Magna Carta moment, and I said (rather pompously, in hindsight) "I am going about my lawful occasions, officer. I am not prepared to tell you where I am going or why. If you have no further questions I would like to get on with my business now". So he waved me past with ill grace and that was that. On an emotional level as well as a practical one, I cherish my heritage of many hundreds of years of an Englishman's freedom, so unlike those foreign chappies.