Once again, the Home Secretary surveys our broken justice system - closed courts; the 7% prosecution rate; underfunded police, CPS & legal aid; dangerously overcrowded, death-ridden prisons; and in her wisdom concludes that “putting more people in those prisons” is the priority.
Not a single emergency worker will be made any safer by this change. And they of course know this. They know that making someone serve an extra few months in our disgusting prisons will achieve nothing to prevent reoffending.
But the Home Secretary takes them all for fools.
But the Home Secretary takes them all for fools.
I would like a journalist to please ask Priti Patel which of the five statutory purposes of criminal sentencing - punishment; reduction of crime (incl through deterrence); reform and rehabilitation; public protection; or reparation - is served by adding a few months to sentences.
For context, no assault which causes injury to an emergency worker will be treated any differently. Where bodily harm, a wound or GBH is caused, the maximum sentence remains unchanged.
This affects only common assault or battery where no or trivial injury is caused.
This affects only common assault or battery where no or trivial injury is caused.
Here’s the thing: the law on assaults (offences against the person) is an archaic shambles. It is an often incoherent Victorian relic, and can produce perverse sentencing outcomes - eg inflicting GBH without intent, which can include paralysing someone, carries a max of 5 years.
The Law Commission published a report in 2015 proposing wholesale reform. The government basically ignored it. If Patel genuinely cared about improving sentencing for violent offences, she might take the time to read it: lawcom.gov.uk/project/offenc…
