Protecting the Protectors is a noble and important aim.
Here’s why this new law does not achieve it. [THREAD]
Here’s why this new law does not achieve it. [THREAD]
Obviously assaults on emergency workers are unacceptable. That is so obvious as to be trite, but for the avoidance of doubt, that is my starting point. Anything we can do to offer protection to emergency workers should be seriously considered. But this new law is not serious.
It seeks to do two things:
1) Create a new offence of “assault against an emergency worker in the exercise of their functions”.
2) Create a “statutory aggravating factor” for more serious assaults.
Let’s break this down.
1) Create a new offence of “assault against an emergency worker in the exercise of their functions”.
2) Create a “statutory aggravating factor” for more serious assaults.
Let’s break this down.
The new offence will apply where violence is used against an EW (defined as below) resulting in trivial or no injury, which would currently be charged as common assault or battery. The maximum sentence would double from 6 to 12 months.
As we discussed yesterday in a separate thread, automatic release means that a prisoner serving a fixed-term sentence serves half their sentence before being released on licence. So at most, this new offence will mean that the worst offenders spend an extra 3 months in prison.
As for the second proposal - to make assaulting an emergency worker a “statutory aggravating factor” - this means that for more serious offences causing injury, the court will have to treat the victim’s status as an EW as an aggravating factor when assessing sentence. But.
The only hitch, as the MoJ’s press release quietly acknowledges, is that THIS IS ALREADY THE LAW.
Sentencing Guidelines for assault,
which courts are required to follow, specify this as an aggravating factor.
Putting this “on a statutory footing” makes no practical difference.
Sentencing Guidelines for assault,
which courts are required to follow, specify this as an aggravating factor.
Putting this “on a statutory footing” makes no practical difference.
So if the only thing this Act changes is adding a few months onto low-level assault, what is it trying to achieve?
There’s an argument that criminal law has a signposting function - signalling (even if emptily) How Unacceptable This Is.
But that’s not what this Act claims to do
There’s an argument that criminal law has a signposting function - signalling (even if emptily) How Unacceptable This Is.
But that’s not what this Act claims to do
It is claimed that these “changes” will offer “protection”. Chris Bryant, the prime mover behind this Act, talks in populist terms about ending “slaps on the wrist” and enabling EW to “do their job in peace”.
But how?
But how?
The second change heralded by the Act achieves zilch in practical terms. The first adds a few months in prison onto some common assaults.
Will these extra few months afford time for rehabilitation? Nope.
Are they a deterrent? Hard to see how.
Will these extra few months afford time for rehabilitation? Nope.
Are they a deterrent? Hard to see how.
Firstly, the people who commit these offences often do so when drunk, drugged, because they’re evading arrest or because they have entrenched violent behaviours. They do not pause to contemplate the likely sentence before lashing out.
But even if they did, are they expected to be fearful of that notional extra few months? Seriously? Is there a scrap of evidence for this? I’ve scoured the debate on Hansard. I can’t see a thing.
I have enormous sympathy for EWs. I know, from here and in real life, how they often feel disappointed in what they perceive as lenient sentencing for violent offences.
But they are being sold a pup with this law. They are being told it will #ProtectTheProtectors.
It won’t.
But they are being sold a pup with this law. They are being told it will #ProtectTheProtectors.
It won’t.
It is political mist, cheap gesture politics making no intelligent or evidence-based effort at addressing the root causes of this type of offending; merely slapping on a few months of extra prison and dressing it up as “added protection”.
Emergency workers deserve better.
Emergency workers deserve better.
It had to happen eventually. I’ve just realised I’ve basically written this whole thread before. I’m that grandparent who tells you the same story every time you visit. Thank you for politely nodding along as if it’s the first time you’ve heard it.
