Well this is a dreadful piece. Utterly devoid of legal and factual context, and omitting the key information required to make any judgement on the leniency or severity of the sentences. This isn’t an “investigation”. It’s rank amateur tabloid hackery. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6…
The writer optimistically describes his work as an “audit”. In reality, he has observed a handful of sentence hearings at the Crown Court and selected some where non-immediate custodial sentences were imposed to support his preconceived thesis that the courts are “soft”. 
This sentence betrays the embarrassing ignorance of the writer towards the most basic precepts of our justice system. The whole point in having sentence passed by independent courts rather than aggrieved victim is to ensure that justice is done to all. Including the defendant.
This means - shockingly - that the courts will try to be fair to defendants. Even those convicted of horrible, serious crimes. That’s how our country rolls. The Mail’s horror at judges trying to be “fair” is the stuff of parody.
In a bold intellectual leap, the Mail submits that the failure of the courts to send even more people to prison (when we already have severe overcrowding and the highest prison population in the EU) is to blame for the prisons crisis.
No mention of the near £1bn cut to the prison budget, 30% staff cut or deliberately degrading conditions all cheerled by the Mail when Chris Grayling was taking an axe to the justice system.
The Mail’s expert commentator of choice is Harry Fletcher. Aside from the obvious point that any self-styled “victims’ rights” advocate is going to have a less than impartial view on defendants, Fletcher is always calling for longer sentences.
Turning to the substance of the “case studies”, enough could be said to fill a chapter in a book (Chapter 10 of this book, in fact amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrist…) but let’s look at what the writer *doesn’t* tell you:
1. Starting with the basics, the “audit” fails to fully specify the criminal offences being sentenced or that maximum sentences available to the court.
2. It fails to mention in the majority of the examples the relevant Sentencing Guidelines, preferring to “name and shame” the judges as if they’ve gone off on wild frolics of their own. Maybe they have. But without knowing the Guidelines, we can’t say.
3. Indecent images of children, for example, is a horrible offence, but one in which the courts will sometimes consider that more can be achieved in “fixing” the offender by a length and intensive community order/suspended sentence. The Guidelines encourage this approach.
This is a particular treat. The Guidelines specify a starting point of 6 months. The judge imposed 8 months. SOFT SENTENCE!
No mention of the Guidelines on suspending custodial terms, nor of the judge’s reasoning for doing so in this case.
No mention of the Guidelines on suspending custodial terms, nor of the judge’s reasoning for doing so in this case.
4. The piece fails in all but a handful to make any reference to input from the Probation Service (Pre-Sentence Reports), mental health reports or other matters of mitigation (beyond mocking the defendant who was getting married). These reports can be crucial to sentence.
I could go on, but I have to go. The bottom line is this: This story proves nothing, other than the Mail found 12 cases in 2 weeks where the courts didn’t send people to prison. There is insufficient context or detail to form any conclusions on the individual cases concerned...
...let alone draw findings about the wider system. It is a truly shameful piece of journalism. If the writer wishes to contact me privately by DM, I am happy to take the time to teach them the basics about the courts to avoid them embarrassing themselves again in the future.
