Riot sentences "too severe"

According to 'MPs and justice campaigners', some of the sentences handed down in the last few days to people convicted of offences during the recent riots are too severe.

On Tuesday two men were jailed for four years for using Facebook to incite riots and another was given 18 months for having a stolen TV in his car.

Just think: if we were in the habit of giving sentences like as a routine, would the rioters perhaps have thought twice about burning and stealing other people's property in the first place?

Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake said sentences "should be about restorative justice" not retribution.

Then Tom Brake is a muppet. Retribution has always been a legitimate purpose of sentencing. It expresses society's rejection of the behaviour and lets the rest of us feel that the problem has been dealt with - that awful pop-psych thing of 'closure'.

Mr Brake told the BBC's Newsnight that some of those convicted had received sentences which would have been different if they had committed the same crime the day before the riots.

Told you he's a muppet. Of course they were different. If I light a cigarette in my garden, that is a very different thing from society's point of view than* if I light it in my local petrol station on delivery day.

"This should be about restorative justice - in other words making people acknowledge the offences they have committed - and preferably, if the victims want it, [to] actually sit down face to face with the victims so that they can hear from the victims the impact they have had. But it should not be about retribution," he said.

Personally, if I have just had my business burned to the ground or my home and its contents destroyed, the last thing I would want is to sit down with the perpetrators and discuss it - unless it was in a closed room, no cameras, and I had an AK47 to help me out.

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.

I'm sure if he has anything to do with it, they will.

"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."

Well for one thing, John Cooper QC is a barrister, which means he is employed by the rest of us, not the other way round. And yes, you can throw away the rule-book because of a groundswell of opinion. The rule-book is only the groudswell of popular opinion taken over a longer period of time, after all. Bring on elected Police chiefs!

Sitting at Manchester Crown Court, sentencing Judge Andrew Gilbart QC said: "I have no doubt at all that 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."

Precisely.

In the comments, from John O'Hagan:

Since this country is good at out sourcing services to Mumbai and other places, what say we out source our Prisons to Mumbai where real prisons exist, would probably only cost the tax payer around £2 per day you would'nt get much rioting after that i can tell you

Heh.

* Yes, I know we say 'different from' and the Americans say 'different than', but the first sounded wrong and the second sounded right, OK?

Two Cheers

Via JuliaM, this story:

A woman has been jailed for lying that she had been abducted and raped after becoming worried her husband would find out about a one night stand.

Nicola Osborne said she had been put into a car and raped in a public toilet in July, which led to the arrest of the man she had consensual sex with.

Two reasons to be cheerful with this one:

Firstly

Osborne, 32, of Portsmouth, was jailed for 18 months after earlier admitting perverting the course of justice.

And secondly

The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was arrested and detained for 12 hours.

Julia has highlighted many of these cases in recent months, giving the lie to the usual claim that false claims of rape are "very rare". Usually, the woman is let off with a caution or a community sentence, and the man is named, shamed and then later told he has been cleared, and to go away and not make a fuss.

While being cleared by a court is the end of the matter from a legal point of view, the man's life could be shattered by such a false claim. Apart from the fact that a lot of people will think 'no smoke without fire', there is the small matter of your indiscretions (even if legal) becoming a matter of public knowledge. Which of us could really stand having all our bad decisions plastered across the front page of the Daily Mail? For most men, the public humiliation of having your sex life discussed in open court and reported in the press would be devastating, even if it were officially determined that no crime had been committed.

So two cheers here: for the decision to send the woman to prison for the very serious offence of perverting the course of justice; and for the court's decision not to name the man involved.

I'm not diminishing the crime of rape, which is unspeakably nasty and is rightfully regarded as one of the worst crimes in common law. But when women use the cry of 'rape' to cover a drunken liaison which they later regret, it diminishes the crime in everyone's eyes, and the real victims are those women who are raped, and who find that people doubt them because ... well, "she probably didn't want her husband to find out".

Understand a little less

John Major's 1993 statement that "We must condemn a little more and understand a little less" horrified me at the time I heard it. How could a politician believe that anything could be solved by less understanding? It seemed a very anti-intellectual and populist thing to say, and he went down in my estimation when he said it. However, things have moved on since then, and now I am not sure that he wasn't right. Take these stories (1) (2) (3):

A teenage girl has been jailed for life for killing a Fife grandmother during a row over £5 and a borrowed cigarette. ... Mrs Gray, 63, died as a result of a head injury after she was knocked to the ground and repeatedly stamped on.

A man convicted over the death of a Matalan store manager in east London was on police bail at the time of the killing. ... Maina, of Canning Town, was bailed after Rizwan Darbar, 17, was stabbed in West Ham during a mobile phone robbery. He was later convicted of the 17-year-old's murder and jailed for life.

DOZENS of college pupils were involved in violent clashes with police yesterday afternoon (November 3), forcing the closure of Orpington High Street. ... The trouble flared at around 5.25pm when more than 40 Orpington College students waited for a bus outside Boots in the high street.... Around 15 of them boarded a route 51 before the driver shut his doors and a patrolling PCSO told the remaining teenagers they would have to wait for the next bus.

So we have a 16-year-old girl who lends and old lady a cigarette and stamps her to death when she goes to collect what she is owed. And we have a man who murders a 17-year-old while robbing him of his phone, and while on bail for that offence acts as look-out in a robbery where the store manager is stabbed in the neck and dies. And he wasn't idle in between the two killings, either:

In the ensuing 15 months Maina was involved in Mr Simpson's killing, was caught with a knife, cannabis, crack cocaine and heroin, before finally being charged in January last year with the 17-year-old's murder.

And we have a group of college students who think it is OK to riot (including hospitalising the PCSO who spoke to them and involving police from three areas, a dog unit and the TSG) because a bus was full and they were told they would have to wait for another one.

In each case, no doubt, there will be the usual pleas in mitigation, citing poor backgrounds, boredom, the newest excuse of "toxic upbringing" and probably racism, too. And the courts will listen to all this, and the sentences will be ameliorated to, if not quite a slap on the wrist, then something that most people will regard as utterly inadequate.

Nicolle Earley (the girl who killed the old lady) was given a life sentence for murder. As one who still doesn't support the death penalty, that seems about right to me. But wait - the 'life sentence' is really 14 years. That means she gets out and is a free woman at the age of 32. In what way that is an adequate punishment for murder escapes me.

Anthony Maina was given a life sentence for the murder of the 17-year-old - again, 14 years [1]. He won't serve a sentence for the manslaughter of the store manager, as he is already on a life sentence.

Several youths were arrested following the disturbances in Orpington. Who knows what chilling punishments await them?

Two things occur to me here: one is that there is now a large section of society that has no respect for human life or the law, and the other is that we don't seem to have any concept of punishing people in line with the seriousness of their offending.

I wonder if we had listened to John Major in 1993, and spent less time trying to understand people who commit crimes like this, and more effort in bringing home to them the consequences of their actions, things might be a little different? I might suggest:

• If you murder someone, you go to jail for life, and you will never get out, regardless of your home circumstances, mental state or prior history;
• If you deliberately injure someone, you will be taken out of circulation in very unpleasant circumstances and kept there for a time commensurate with your offence;
• If you riot, damage property and frighten ordinary people half to death, then those ordinary people can take you out of circulation for as long as is necessary.

The principle that we should try to understand criminals in order to help them integrate in a peaceful society is a laudable one. But it would seem that we have taken the idea that 'to understand is to forgive' a little too far, and we now fail to protect ourselves and our society against people who have grown up with the idea that no-one can restrain them in any way.

[1] Yes, I know these are 'minimum' tariffs, but does anyone seriously believe that they will be kept in after this time, or even released early if the jails are crowded enough?

Householders and burglars

I'm not a violent person. In fact, I don't think I have ever struck anyone in anger in my life. I've had a few bundles when I worked (briefly) as a bouncer, and I once (gently) slapped a woman who had become hysterical. But actually hitting someone with the intent to hurt them - never.

This householder/burglar thing disturbs me, though. If I ever woke up in the night to find someone in the house, or even in the bedroom, I really don't know what I'd do. I used to own a shotgun, and a lot of my neighbours keep theirs under the bed for just this occasion, but I am no Tony Martin and I always kept it well locked away. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the malice to kill someone just for nicking my TV, and the consequences if the gun was taken from me don't bear thinking about.

Equally, I wouldn't say to myself "well, it's only property, and it's not as if it matters in the great scheme of things, so I'll pull the duvet over my head and report it in the morning". I would be frightened and furious - a very dangerous combination in anyone.

I once had advice on this from a policeman, off the record. His advice was to arm yourself, but with something non-lethal. A torch, a big, heavy one, was the best. After all, if you batter an intruder to jam with a baseball bat it starts to look a bit premeditated, especially if, like me, you have no kids on the premises and the last time you played rounders was in primary school. But what jury would ever criticise a householder for carrying a torch while investigating noises in the dark? The advice was to carry it over your shoulder, pointing forward, with a finger on the on/off button. When you find the intruder, switch it on. And while he is temporarily blinded by the light, bring the torch down over your head onto his cranium. You're unlikely to do him permanent harm, but he won't be getting up for a while.

So now I have a heavy Maglite about 15" long under the bed in easy reach, and I know what to do with it. And I would use it, without a doubt. Because I would be afraid, but also very, very angry.



The police (official version) would say that you should not confront the intruder, but call them and let them deal with it. Ha. Bloody. Ha.

• For one thing, the phone lines are easily cut, and there is no mobile signal in the bedroom end of the house
• For another, the nearest neighbour is a good half-mile away
• For yet another, I have lived here 20 years, and have seen the police here four times - three to check on my gun storage arrangements and once to ask if we had seen anything following a break-in to someone's garage. I doubt if the police even know where we are, let alone get here in time to deal with a critical situation
• And for another, if they turned out, and if they found the house, and if they caught the intruder, what would happen? My guess would be nothing.

Luckily, I live in a low-crime area, and the likelihood of being burgled is low. But the thought is always there - what if?

And what if I heard noises in the night and picked up my torch to investigate, and found one of these?

Cold-calling police are to pose as burglars to drive home their safety message. Householders whose homes are an easy target could be woken in the middle of the night by officers trying windows and doors. The initiative, code-named Operation Golden, is being launched in a bid to cut break-ins.

It is being trialled by Cheshire Police, who say residents who fall foul of their checks will be roused with a lecture from officers on what they could have lost.

Assaulting A Police Officer carries a heavy penalty - rightly - and I'm sure I would going daaaahn for a long time.

What is going on? First they were breaking into your car, then giving you your stuff back with a warning. Now they are going to burgle your house and then get you up for a ticking-off. I think I could easily lose my patience at that point.

It's a serious issue, though. In an ideal world (and one I remember being something like it within living memory), we would have a police force that responded to people in distress, and arrested offenders, and a judicial system that put them behind bars to stop them doing it again. Then we could all sleep easy in our beds and there would be no need for torches, or guns, or cricket bats, or vigilante-style activity. But now, I have no confidence that the police would even leave the station for a minor thing like a burglary (too busy prosecuting motorists for eating an apple), and if they did catch anyone the worst they would receive would be a slap on the wrist.

As far as I am concerned, human rights are a two-way street. If you break the law, you remove yourself from the protection of the law. You don't want me to come at you with a heavy implement? Then don't break into my house. Simple.

It reminds me of an old, but relevant, joke. Stop me if you've heard it.

A man wakes in the middle of the night after hearing a noise. He looks out of the window to see two youths in his shed. He phones the police to report the intruders.

"Sorry, Sir, there's no-one available at the moment. You aren't in any danger, so let them get on with it, go back to bed and report it in the morning."

He isn't happy with this, so he goes outside, apprehends them and ties them up with garden twine. He waits a few minutes and then phones the police again.

"It's OK, no need to rush. I've shot them."

Within minutes, the air is full of police helicopters, there are six pursuit vehicles on his drive, police snipers on his roof, and officers in riot gear and bulletproof vests are swarming over his garden.

He calls the senior officer over and points out the youths, tied up and upset, but alive.

"Sir, I thought you said you had shot them."

"And I thought you said you had no-one available!"

Self-defence

This a little behind the curve, but ... I have been following the case of Munir Hussain with interest. This, you may recall, was the man who was held hostage, along with his wife and family, in his own home by burglars. He managed to escape, and with his brother chased the fleeing burglars. When they caught up with them, they gave one a good hiding with a cricket bat, giving the burglar permanent brain injury as a result. Mr Hussain was given a 30-month prison sentence, and there was an outcry similar to that around the Tony Martin case of 1999. The brother, who we may assume carried out the majority of the attack, was sentenced to 39 months.

This week, the case went to appeal, and Mr Justice Judge (isn't that good? almost as good as Cocklecarrot) reduced his sentence to 12 months, suspended for two years: effectively, freed on appeal. Great, but disturbing.

The great bit first. Mr Hussain was imprisoned in his own home by a career criminal. His wife and children had been tied up, and he must have had grave concerns about what would happen to them if the burglars decided to see what they could get away with. Fortunately, he escaped, contacted his brother, and chased the burglars, who by this time had given up and run away. They caught one of them and gave him a sound pasting. Sounds good - the law-abiding man gets his revenge, and there is one fewer criminal to terrorise some other innocent family.

The disturbing bit is that the attack was not committed on Mr Hussain's property. The burglars were chased up the street and attacked far from Mr Hussain's home. That suggests a punishment beating rather than self-defence while in fear of one's life. Secondly, a number or weapons, including a golf club and a cricket bat, were used in the attack, where there is no suggestion that the burglars were armed in any way. Thirdly, the burglar sustained serious head injuries, sufficient to prevent him appearing at the trial, although not enough to render him incapable of further criminal acts, it would appear. The law allows the householder to use reasonable force to defend his home and family from intruders, but in this case there is a big question mark over how far Mr Hussain's actions stand the test of reasonableness or proportionality.

This is not a clear-cut case, no matter how the Daily Mail spins it.

For myself, I am a believer in the rule of law. If a householder has to resort to violence to defend himself or apprehend a criminal intent on stealing his property, then as long as the force used is reasonable, I have no problem with it. I have a feeling that Mr Hussain went beyond that simple definition when he chased the burglar down the street and attacked him. But there are other ways of looking at it. The burglar set out with the intention of breaking the law. Mr Hussain had been to the mosque, and no thought of criminality was in his mind, until he found the intruder in his house. The mens rea suggests that the burglar was intent on criminality, whereas Mr Hussain was innocent of any such intention until provoked.

I would tend to side with Mr Hussain for this reason: the law is there for everyone, and its function is to protect everyone. If I deliberately break the law, it is hardly consistent for me to then claim that the people I was offending against should adhere to the laws of the land in their acts of defence. Once you enter someone else's property with criminal intent, as far as I am concerned you have signed away your rights as a citizen. If you get a good hiding for your trouble, well - you shouldn't have been in someone else's house, should you? I would go further: if you rig up trip wires linked to a shotgun, or you electrify certain metal objects to harm intruders, well why shouldn't you? Unless someone is deliberately breaking the law, these measures cannot harm them. And if you break the law, frankly, it's your lookout.

I think Mr Judge Justice, or whatever he is called, has got it about right. Mr Hussain did go too far, but he was substantially justified in what he did. A conviction, but with no penalty, is about right.