David Thomas QC: Judges have clear rules for riot-related sentencing

Thursday 18 August 2011 00:00
Comments

Commentators on sentencing for offences committed in the course of the recent disturbances will doubtless have many criticisms to make. For some, the judges will undoubtedly be too soft; others will argue that the judges are being driven by some kind of media-inspired panic to impose disproportionate sentences. Whatever the nature of the offence, judges have sentenced within the framework established by Parliament in legislation.

The first principle is that a custodial sentence of any kind must not be passed unless the offence or offences were "so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified". Parliament has firmly stated that a custodial sentence is the last resort, to be applied only where other measures are inadequate. When a custodial sentence is passed, the sentence must be "commensurate with the seriousness of the offence". The recent disorders, although unique in that they were widespread throughout the country, are by no means the first occasion on which courts have had to deal with offences of this kind. No one familiar with the guidance given by the Court of Appeal on earlier occasions will find any of the sentences so far passed at all surprising.

One key principle stated many times is that an offender who takes part in a large-scale public disturbance cannot expect to be sentenced as if his actions had been committed in isolation. The acts of the individual must be viewed in the context of the disorder to which he has contributed. Second, in cases of public disorder as much in any other kind of case, there is no room for distinction between offenders on the basis of their social origins. Young offenders from comfortable backgrounds with bright prospects which they have jeopardised cannot expect to be treated more leniently than less fortunate defendants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The legal restrictions on the sentencing powers of judges will influence the outcome of many cases and produce many anomalies and disparities. Burglary of a shop is punishable in the case of an offender over 18 with 10 years' imprisonment or detention, as is riot. The maximum sentence for violent disorder is five years and for affray, three years. In the case of an offender under 18, the maximum for any of these offences is a two-year detention and training order, which must be reduced to 18 months if the defendant pleads guilty. A youth under 15 who is not a "persistent offender" cannot be given a custodial sentence for any of these offences and must be dealt with by a referral order.

Politicians might be advised to spend their efforts not in criticising judges but in examining the complexities of the legislative structure they have created, within which judges must work.

D A Thomas is the editor of 'Current Sentencing Practice' and author of 'The Sentencing Referencer'

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in