Appeal court criticises judge’s approach to riot sentencing

Lord chief justice says if other crown courts had circulated alternative tariffs it would have been a ‘recipe for chaos’ A Manchester judge who made influential comments on sentencing offenders in the immediate aftermath of the August riots has been criticised by the appeal court. If other crown courts had circulated alternative tariffs for various crimes it would have been a “recipe for chaos” in the judicial system, the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, warned. Disapproval of the comments by Judge Andrew Gilbart QC, the recorder of Manchester, came from all three judges sitting in the appeal court on Tuesday as they began considering the first cases to come before them from the summer disturbances. The hearing follows concerns expressed last month by senior legal figures that some prison terms imposed on rioters were unduly harsh. The former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, cautioned that the courts risked being swept up in a “collective loss of proportion”. Opening the appeal cases, the judges – Lord Judge, Lord Justice Thomas and Lord Justice Leveson, said they would view BBC television news coverage of the riots before they decided whether any of the sentences handed down were disproportionate; they would only watch material already broadcast. Nine men and one woman are appealing against what their lawyers allege was the “manifestly excessive” length of their custodial sentences. None are challenging their convictions. Only three of the appellants – Lorriane McGrane, a 19-year old Territorial Army soldier, from Peckham, south-east London, Enrico Vanasco, a 25-year-old chef from Manchester and Hassan Koyuncu, an 18-year-old from north London – appeared in court. Two of the appellants, Jordan Blackshaw, 20, from Northwich, Cheshire, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, from Warrington, Cheshire, had posted notices on Facebook inviting people to participate in riots in their home towns. Both received four years in prison. Their lawyers told the court that what their clients had done was “monumentally foolish”, “hugely stupid” and “hugely shortsighted”. Gareth Roberts, representing Blackshaw, said the judge imposing the sentence “had failed to consider the leading authorities in relation to riot sentences [set] following the Bradford riots [in 2001] where sentences of four years were given to those carrying crossbows and wielding scaffolding poles.” But the lord chief justice implied that the appeal court viewed this summer’s disturbances as more serious because they were far more widespread. “[The Bradford cases] are not guideline cases,” he said. “The Bradford riots were confined to Bradford. One of our concerns is that these were nationwide. At the moment we are inclined to consider that we should take that into consideration.” Addressing the ‘guidelines’ formulated by Gilbart in Manchester as the courts began to process offenders, the appeal court justices were equally dismissive. Leveson, who is also chairman of the Sentencing Council, said: “What concerns me is that the judge … started to give sentence ranges … for offences with which he was not concerned. That’s not even something this court does.” Gilbart has previously said that he did not disregard sentencing guidelines. Thomas described the tariffs for offences set out as “wholly alien to the common law” and a new departure. The riots were not “unprecedented”, the appeal court judges added, citing the 1981 Toxteth disturbances which sparked copycat riots in other English cities. Among the 10 cases before the appeal court is that of Stephen Carter, 26, of Salford, who received 16 months for picking up a bag of clothes hidden in bushes during Manchester’s riots. The clothes had been looted from nearby shops. He had committed the offence, his counsel, Helen Richardson said, within the sight of police officers. Sentencing for offences of dishonesty were “disproportionately enhanced,” she told the court. “The premium added for offences of dishonesty [as opposed to violence] was too high in the circumstances.” Another appellant, David Beswick, 31, a coach driver from Eccles, is appealing against his 18 month sentence. He had been caught with a TV in his car. He told the police at the time that if his vehicle had not run out of petrol, it “might have been a different story”. David Perry, QC, for the crown, acknowledged that it was not the function of a crown court judge to formulate guidelines but he said: “Underlying [Judge Gilbart's] concerns was consistency. The problem facing the judges was extremely difficult. “It wasn’t an easy sentencing exercise. … There was a structural problem. There’s a tension between consistency at the time of sentencing and afterwards when the court of appeal first has an opportunity to see what is the right approach.” According to figures released by the ministry of justice, three-quarters of those appearing in court for riot-related offences had criminal records. Judgment on the 10 appeals is expected next week. UK riots Court of appeal Crime Police Manchester Lord Justice Leveson Facebook Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk

Posted by on September 27, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.