I wish those sentancing guidelines were used when the mps stole all that money from us…

And I wish people would stop dragging up that bollox.

You may not have liked the MPs expenses, but the vast majority were perfectly legal and following the guidance of their own expenses department.

A select few were illegal and they were charged with false accounting and prosecuted (i.e. David Chaytor (former Labour MP) got 18 months).

TandemJeremy – Member
pjt201

Are you sure? Magistrates have the power to impose sentences of up to six months is my understanding

They can impose them, but they do not decide on them, they will have been advised by the probationary service.

What are you on about ? They impose them , dont decide them but ONLY receive advice WHICH IS IT?
and advice from the probation service? Are you sure?
There are sentencing guidlines [ a sthere are for crown court] but the magistrates can sentence within these

Junkyard – Might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb.

Exactly- America’s “3 strikes and you’re out” proved this- if someone thinks they face a high sentence, they commit a crime that makes the sentence seem worthwhile. Prison’s an awful deterrant, everyone knows this, but it turned out it can be an excellent motivator.

And then you’ve got the people handing themselves in, being refused bail and facing high sentences- what’s the message there? Don’t hand yourself in. As someone said up the page, “won’t do that again”

For the ongoing arrests, they’re relying on the community turning people in- the more people that are saying “**** me, that’s excessive”, the less that’ll happen. I wouldn’t turn in a petty thief if I thought they’d get 6 months.

rightplacerighttime – Or, maybe… the magistrates who are actually in court, actually dealing with the people first hand, actually seeing the evidence being put forward, are better at sentencing than a bunch of pundits on a MTB forum?

That’s an easy copout but it never seems to carry much weight when someone gets a light sentence. And in this case, the judge explained the reasoning, and set out a series of reasons to give a low sentence. And there are other cases getting lower sentences- what are the mitigating circumstances that we don’t know about, that would make trying to gouge a policeman’s eyes out a less severe offence than an opportunistic theft without violence or criminal damage with no prior?

You can say “We don’t know the full story”- but we know enough, sometimes. What do you think we’re missing that explains that? The information we have proves, if nothing else, enormous unfairness and inconsistency.

Can’t help but wonder if the water-thief had been offered the option of 6 months or a minor kicking by the cops (Manchester-style), which he would have chosen?
And would TJ STILL have been wringing his hands in despair?

“If sentences for all offences are harsh and some are not treated leniently it make sense to commit worse crimes as there is no greater sentence risk.”

The ‘water thief’ was part of the crowd rioting, If him, and others like him, who, maybe, did not take part in the violent parts of the riot, they were certainly causing more problems for the Police.
Say there are 100 people there, you can bet only 6 to 10 of them of violent loonies.
But, how do the Police know who the loonies are amongst a crowd of 100?
So, idiots like him directly affect the outcome, in that the Police cannot control a large crowd, so indirectly he WAS part of the greater problem.

Junkyard – Member

If it was different crime then a different sentence may be appropriate.
It just depends – the value cannot be ignored in the sentence in this case here though it may not be a factor in all cases. If someone steals a car for example the value of the car should not be a factor as the impact is the same.
I dont think you can get £300 worth of whiskey out of Lidl without filling a car boot.

Well put.

Entering a shop and passing the opportunity to steal high value items, and taking only one low value item, is different from entering a shop and looking for the most valuable items to take, or walking out with all you can carry, or targetting a shop where higher value items are available. He had the opportunity to take more, but chose not to, which proves his motive and his low criminal intent.

Someone said “What if he robbed a jewellers and only took a low value item of jewellery”- tbh you can be pretty sure from his behaviour he wouldn’t have robbed a jewellers.

Last year, I was the victim of a deliberate hit and run. The driver drove into the back of me when I was stationnary at traffic lights in one of the busiest thoroughfares in my city. It had been preceeded by hard revving of his engine and repeated honking of his horn. He was aggrieved that I had signalled and pulled in in front of him when he was stopped in traffic and had left more than the length of a car in front of him. Fortunately, two witness came forward and the Fiscal took the case to court. He was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to 8 penalty points, a nine month ban and instructed to sell his car to pay a £750 fine. It transpired that he had two previous speeding convictions and had received a 300 hour community service order for forgery for having passed off several hundred pounds of fake notes previously.

From my perspective, I have to ask whether the points and the previous community service order in the High Court had any effect on his outlook on life and on his behaviour? When he hit me, he could see for himself the damage he had done to my bike, the frame bent out of alignment, bent hanger and mech and the back wheel so badly buckled that it took the paint off the chainstay. He knew he had done wrong yet refused to give his insurance details and drove off. He made a conscious decision to use his vehicle as a weapon. To be blunt, sometimes the courts have to intervene and send out a strong message that there are serious consequences for your actions. We are all responsible for our actions. If we chose the wrong path, if there is no or little consequence for our misdeeds, what is to stop us continuing to do wrong? In his case, he now has no car and will struggle to get insurance in the future. He made a conscious decision which has had a significant consequence for him. I hope that he now reflects on his actions and modifys his behaviour going forward.

In terms of harsh sentencing and adopting a zero tolerance approach, Mayor Giulliani adopted this in New York several years ago and it had a dramatic impact on not just minor crime but also the level of more serious crime.

When it comes to the crunch, strong sentences have to be one of the ways forward. Not only will they force the perpetrator to think twice in future but may have a similar impact on other potential offenders. In extremis, I wonder how quick folk would be to loot and riot were the form of Sharia law practiced in Saudi to be enacted here?

The ‘water thief’ was part of the crowd rioting, If him, and others like him, who, maybe, did not take part in the violent parts of the riot, they were certainly causing more problems for the Police.
Say there are 100 people there, you can bet only 6 to 10 of them of violent loonies.
But, how do the Police know who the loonies are amongst a crowd of 100?
So, idiots like him directly affect the outcome, in that the Police cannot control a large crowd, so indirectly he WAS part of the greater problem.

Its a good point – we constantly hear tales of “oh, he was only a poor innocent bystander”

In a riot, there is no such thing, if you’re there, you’re part of the problem.

I genuinely believe a reintroduction of the Riot act principle of disperse or face the consequences, or colloquially “right **** off back home, anyone still here in an hour gets what’s coming to them” is called for.

Northwind

Try carrying 6 large bottles of water and see how much more you can manage? As a Lidl shopper, I van confirm that six bottles of their fizzy water is a bit of a handful! 😀

Thankfully the law doesn’t take account of what an individual might have done but what they did do.

Do a search for Kelling and Wilsons paper from 1983 which postulated their broken windows theory in relation to criminal behaviour. It makes for interesting reading and some argue forms the theoretical basis of a zero tolerance approach to crime.

Sanny- crime in NY was already falling before Zero Tolerance came in, and it continued to fall in line with other cities where zero tolerance wasn’t used. NY had tried zero tolerance previously, and crime went up. It didn’t work at all. (incidentally, the reason crime actually fell was almost certainly economic growth)

I’ve actually read Broken Windows, and what’s interesting about it is that it wasn’t peer reviewed, and it didn’t provide any evidence for its assertions. But the New Jersy clean streets movement (which was a truer implementation of zero tolerance than NY’s was) showed was that crime was completely unaffected- people felt safer on the streets but they weren’t. The article makes assumptions but the reality doesn’t support it, some would say disproves it.

Oh and if you stack them you can carry 3 cases no bother, it’s only 36 kilos. One in each arm is more manageable if you think you might have to run from the popo though.

Northwind

So what would you propose the answer is then? In my own experience, the soft option of community sentencing and fines didn’t stop me getting run into the back of. If he had received a custodial sentence previously, it may be that I would not have found myself in harms way.

As for zero tolerance, it’s been proven to work best in high populous areas. London is a prime candidate for it. If you see your streets getting run down, strewn with litter, graffitti on the walls, at what point do you lose pride in the area you live and a sense of belonging? If no one else apparently cares then why should you? It’s a small logical step which is evidenced by what happened in London and elsewhere. I would suspect Lidl man may have thought to himself that as everyone else was doing it, he’d probably not get caught and chose to act as he did. Hell bloody mend him. He can feel remorse and shame all he wants, it doesn’t change the fact that he broke the law and has been punished for it.

I hope that he now reflects on his actions and modifys his behaviour going forward.

We all hope his happens we just question whether 6 mths was needed to achieve this. He had no previous and as you note the person who hit you has still not been sent down for crimes…which do you think is the criminal who needs to be taught a lesson or requires rehabilitation if you prefer that route. the water thief or mad car driver?
Zero tolerance sounds great but the evaluation of it as success is somewhat mixed and controversial. There is no real proof it worked though it does appeal to many voters.

He can feel remorse and shame all he wants, it doesn’t change the fact that he broke the law and has been punished for it.

nor the fact the sentences was disproportionate and no one os aying they are innocent.

My view is that the impact upon the victim should be a significant factor in determining the severity of the crime. Which is why I would always regard breaking into an old lady’s house more seriously than stealing from a supermarket.

But in this case his stealing water from a supermarket was part of a huge disturbance that will have made old ladies the length and breadth of the country more fearful of being out on the streets.

He was part of a riot, not a casual shoplifter.

I find it very hard to believe that a custodial sentence of this length for this crime would be handed out in any other circumstances

The magistrate was quite clear; the background of, and involvement in, the riots/looting was an aggravating feature of the crime and certainly a large part of his sentence.

Saying that it was, in effect, victimless is pointless because as others have pointed out, he didn’t leave home to get some water and find Lidl was smashed apart, he just decided to join in and nick something. A split second to decide to do it but he’s got to live with the results, same as that student who lobbed the extinguisher off the building, Charlie Gilmour and similar.

We’ve all had the opportunity to steal things with little/no chance of being caught, but most of us understand right and wrong.

Sanny – Member

As for zero tolerance, it’s been proven to work best in high populous areas.

Well no, I don’t think it has, that’s what I’m saying. I’ve never seen a credible claim to say the “harsh punishment” approach that came out of the zero tolerance idea works. You claimed NY as a success but actually it’s a perfect example of the opposite, and the best proof I know of that it doesn’t work. (Also a good proof that politicians and lawmakers and elements of the press are very good at claiming success where there was none, and playing PR games that affect people’s lives without caring whether it actually works)

Fixing broken windows is a great idea and there’s a fair amount of evidence that it works (as well as seeming like common sense), but interpreting as “Let’s punish people as hard as we can for breaking windows” isn’t the same thing. Cleaning streets is more cost effective than draconian punishments for minor crimes and has the same result. It’s less satisfying but it’s more effective at the job of reducing crime.

There’s a cause and effect here. Graffiti encourages people to tag- Take away the graffiti, you get less tagging. Punish tagging but don’t take away the tags, and you get the same amount of graffiti, you just end up having punished more people for it. Which appeals to some people obviously but it’s not productive.

Sanny – Member

So what would you propose the answer is then? In my own experience, the soft option of community sentencing and fines didn’t stop me getting run into the back of. If he had received a custodial sentence previously, it may be that I would not have found myself in harms way.

Well, mainly from what little I know of it, I’d say it’s not a good example. Lots of people on here have speeding convictions, would punishing them harder for that make them less likely to try and run a cyclist down? It’s not a comparable offence. if he’d tried to run a cyclist down before, and got a light sentence, then yep I’d say you’ve got a cause and effect. The guy did something that’s obviously mental, so applying rational thought to it isn’t that likely to work out unfortunately.

commercial burglary of insecure premises would not normally attract a sentence of this length for a person of good character in employment or education and pleading guilty.

While the magistrate was clearly influenced by the fact that the burglary occurred during the riots if he was to be sentenced as a rioter perhaps he should have been charged with riot so he could of had the opportunity to contest that allegation.

I bet that for commercial reasons very few if any “Rioters” will face riot charges but instead will be charged with violent disorder.

crankboy – Member

While the magistrate was clearly influenced by the fact that the burglary occurred during the riots if he was to be sentenced as a rioter perhaps he should have been charged with riot so he could of had the opportunity to contest that allegation.

Interesting point. SO it could be argued he’s been charged with and plead for one offence, but been sentenced as if he’d been charged with and plead for another?

But in this case his stealing water from a supermarket was part of a huge disturbance that will have made old ladies the length and breadth of the country more fearful of being out on the streets.

He was part of a riot, not a casual shoplifter.

He wasn’t convicted for rioting, and I don’t see why he should be made responsible for the actions of others. He was an opportunist thief, acting on his own. Wrong, absolutely, but not quite the crime of the centrury.

While the magistrate was clearly influenced by the fact that the burglary occurred during the riots if he was to be sentenced as a rioter perhaps he should have been charged with riot so he could of had the opportunity to contest that allegation.

The reason (according to some legal types on 5 Live this morning, if I understood it right) is that there is no specific crime of “rioting” but that burglary is one of the charges that can be made against rioters/looters.

So questions about why he wasn’t charged with “rioting” are moot.

Northwind as in so much of life the answer is “sort of” if he was a rioter or guilty of violent disorder then 6 months would be too short . The issue is how far is it fair to push the sentence for burglary up tariff to reflect the fact that it happened during a riot.

If the sentence was explained in terms of ” you took advantage of a riot as cover for your looting ” then personally while a bit harsh i think it is an arguably OK sentence keep in mind that this was guilty plea at first opportunity so the judges starting point was this offence?offender merits 9 months in prison . But if the sentence was passed on the basis “you were a rioter but you have only been charged with theft so because you were a rioter I’ll give the maximum sentence i can,” then it is a bit off in my opinion.

So questions about why he wasn’t charged with “rioting” are moot.

I doubt it, as the issue was raised by crankboy. Crankboy has my utmost respect on these sort of threads – he knows what he’s talking about and he invariably makes the most constructive contribution on such matters.

“The reason (according to some legal types on 5 Live this morning, if I understood it right) is that there is no specific crime of “rioting” but that burglary is one of the charges that can be made against rioters/looters.”
Damm has someone repealed section 1 of the public order act while i was not looking?

No, it’s still on the statute books. As you know, though, it’s very rarely if ever used. The reason is that if it’s a riot businesses are not covered by insurance; if it’s a violent disorder they are.

nope it’s still there :
IF 12 or more people
use or threaten unlawful violence (not necessarily at same time)
for a common purpose
so as to scare folk
then they are bad boys guilty of riot and can go to prison for 10 years.

And as far as i know anoymouse is right that’s why when riots come to court they are always violent disorders we don’t want to upset businessmen now do we

OK – I got it slightly wrong – I think it was because he wasn’t with 11 mates then so couldn’t technical be said to be rioting, but that the magistrate wanted to take the rioting into account.

Is that right crankboy?

Maybe a word of explanation instead of a condescending quip next time? (gosh, why is it that the police don’t get the respect they think they are due?)

The explanation was on Victoria Derbyshire programme this morning anyway. Went to find it on iPlayer, but it’s not working yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act

Used to be quite a bit harsher…

Ooh, Crankboy, I think rightplacerighttime thinks you’re a rozzer. Little does he know!

can we not let them al go, it’s friday and the telly has got a bit boring since tuesday. also it would be good to see how long stw can carry on these expert opinions. after all a bit of rioting, building burn and shop robbing will help the economy. there is no shortage of builders for new shops.

rightplacerighttime

really sorry if i was condescending , i was trying to be light hearted.

To get a riot conviction the 12 or more don’t have to be the same gang and don’t all have to use violence simultaneously , the next offence down violent disorder only needs 3 or more . So i think the burglary charge reflects the fact the riot had moved on and this bloke can only be said to have taken the opportunity to help himself in the aftermath.

The value judgement is how far and why did the magistrate or district judge take the background of the riot into account?

anonymous: The reason is that if it’s a riot businesses are not covered by insurance; if it’s a violent disorder they are.

Riot, Civil Commotion, locked out workers, all the same thing as far as insurance is concerned. If it’s mentioned at all. Might be All risks.

Difference with Riot is insurers can reclaim payments for damage due to riot from the police (/taxpayer). The event needs to be declaread a Riot under the Act by the police and the Insurer (or the uninsured home/businessowner) needs to notify the authorities of the loss/claim within 14 days of the incident.

More if you’re interested, from the exciting Insurance Day magazine:

UK extends riot damage claims deadline to 42 days

THE UK government has extended the deadline for riot claims to be submitted to police authorities to 42 days in the clearest sign yet that the authorities expect to pick up a substantial part of the bill from the days of unrest in the country.

Normally such claims must be submitted within 14 days of the damage occurring.

In a statement to the House of Commons today he said:?“I can confirm that any individual, homeowner or business that has suffered damage to or loss of their buildings or property as a result of rioting, can seek compensation under the Riot Damages Act, even if uninsured.

“The government will ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims. And whereas normally claims must be received within 14 days, we will extend the period to 42 days.”

Business interruption claims, which are expected to make up a significant part of the final claims bill for insurers, are not expected to come under the remit of the RDA.

Cameron told MPs that he had received assurances from insurers that “claims will continue to be dealt with as quickly and constructively as possible” and noted the Association of British Insurers’ latest estimate of the insured bill at more than £200m.

Edit: note that Business Interruption won’t go back to the govt. and will be left with the insurers, or the uninsured. (BI = Payment for margin you would have made if an insured incident reduces sales. Allows you to pay suppliers, staff, interest on bank loans, rates etc. Having your building, stock and machinery replaced isn’t much good if your business has gone under through lack of cash in the meantime)

really sorry if i was condescending , i was trying to be light hearted.

Yes, sorry. I was just cross that I had got my facts wrong when I knew that the essence of what I was saying was right i.e. that the court didn’t actually have the option to try him for rioting, even though his crime was directly related to the riot.

The crime was not directly related to the riot it occurred during a riot. It was opportunistic in nature and none of the reports suggest he was involved in the riot just the theft.

rightplacerighttime – Member

that the court didn’t actually have the option to try him for rioting, even though his crime was directly related to the riot.

Yup. Because he wasn’t rioting. They couldn’t try him for murder either because he didn’t kill anyone. Terrible.

Northwind are you sure of the cases you quoted? shereece ashlay has been bailed til august 17th apparently.

I was going to say sentance seems harsh but the inconsistency is baffling/annoying, so the content your post wound me right up. Anyway I hope the prelly bad boys and girls who actually broke into shops and stole the good stuff get considerably more than the opportunistic gits who picked up a vit of tat in the aftermath.

what id like to know is what kind of guarantees there will be that this sort of thing doesnt happen agin… there aren’t any full stop !
years ago there used to be ‘Guardian Angels’ on patrol on the streets of Manchester and also on the trains…. people ‘felt safe’…. we need those kind of groups around agin 😉

D0NK – Member

Northwind are you sure of the cases you quoted? shereece ashlay has been bailed til august 17th apparently.

The link there talks about another younger girl getting remanded til the 17th, and Ashley being given 3 months- it’s 2 different people.

Doh sorry northwind. In that case Grrr bloody stupid inconsistent sentancing!

Unless someone can points out valid reasons why the cases NW mentioned got less jailtime, cause on the face of it it all sounds bobbins to me.

Interesting stuff come out today

Sentencing comments by a senior judge, explaining fully his reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hhj-gilbart-qc-sentencing-remarks-r-v-carter-others.pdf

Interesting stuff

Looked totally boring to me.