Reflection

I'm probably being a little presumptuous, but regular readers might have wondered why the silence of late, particularly given the vast quantity of comment and analysis that has been flowing on the airwaves and via the blogosphere in the wake of the riots. I haven't been away on holiday yet, but to be honest I've been having a long think.

Thank goodness the rioting stopped, but the row between police and politicians about who should take the credit has been unseemly to say the least. The Criminal Justice System has sprung into action rather quicker than most felt it was capable of and I've certainly been amazed with the speed some committals to Crown Court have been effected, and weighed off indeed. The first cases dealt with at Manchester Crown Court, by the Recorder no less, clearly had the benefit of fast probation Pre Sentence Reports, but it seems most if not all were current clients with significant offending histories.

The two young men of previous good character and who received four years imprisonment at Chester Crown Court for Incitement has attracted much adverse comment as being far too harsh for what friends described as 'a prank or just having a laugh on Facebook'. I've been trying to decide what I might have put in their PSR's in terms of sentencing recommendations.

Firstly, had they related the 'having a laugh' line to me, they would have been on the receiving end of a lecture, a form of client engagement I haven't used much but which can still be appropriate at certain times. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure any appeal will succeed significantly because of the context in which these two lads decided to 'have a laugh.'

Mayhem was breaking out in many parts of the country, some initiated by incitement via social networking media, and these two decide to 'copycat' with a geographic location, time and invitation to rampage. As a result it necessitated deployment of significant police resources at a time of emergency and when they might have been required at other locations urgently. It is not unlike the making of malicious phone calls to the fire service at a time of serious emergency. Not unlike the joke of 'having a bomb' on a plane at a time of heightened security, or shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre even.

To me these and other examples such as stealing lifebelts or in the past vandalising phone boxes so they are not available for emergency use, all serve to underline the fact that every citizen has shared responsibilities as well as rights. It underlines that actions have consequences, some unintended but serious nevertheless. Normally society can get along relatively well when there is a clear majority of people acting responsibly, but when the balance tips as it did the other week, that is the context in which punishment has to be assessed.

Secondly, just because a riot did not result from this particular act of incitement, is not greatly significant in my view. As far as I know, the act of attempting arson endangering life can be treated as seriously as if arson resulted and lives were put at risk. Only lack of skill or good fortune might have averted a much worse situation, but if either intent or recklessness were present, the perpetrator would be likely to receive serious punishment. 

I think my report would have made a not-too-serious suggestion for Unpaid Work, but with an acknowledgement that if the Judge felt only imprisonment was appropriate, it could be suspended. I don't think this would have been an appropriate occasion in which to turn up at court in person in support of my report. In short, I don't think it would have been a full blown, fully articulated and argued plea for a community disposal, because of the context in which the offence had been committed. I notice that Inspector Gadjet is making much of the courts demonstrating that they can hand out 'decent sentences', but as I say, they have to be viewed in context. 

Perhaps I might not go as far as saying they got what they deserved, but I do say I'm not surprised. In relation to some of the first cases dealt with at Manchester Crown Court, the sentencing judges' full reasoning is well worth reading.