Thread by @kirkkorner

When the offence of assaulting an emergency worker in the course of their duty was created in 2018, there was rumblings from Crown Court judges about it ‘causing problems’, as a mass of cases previously dealt with by magistrates were now landing on their plates.

The reason was the courts were essentially being told to take these incidents more seriously, a shiny new ‘either-way’ offence with increased possible sentence. Cases were being viewed as too serious for magistrates, and so landing in the Crown Court in their droves.

Whether you supported this tougher approach or not, the Crown Courts were, & still are, being over-stretched by lengthy periods of historic cutbacks, courthouse closures, and reductions in judicial sitting days. Add to the mix now the mounting workload post-coronavirus lockdown.

Today’s latest ‘tough on crime’ announcement from the Home Secretary is to double sentences for these offences, spurred on by the recent violence at protests. Some may welcome this, others perhaps not.

It will surely guarantee Crown Court attendance for anyone charged. What’s missing is any semblance of an overall view of how justice deals with the new policy.

Today we got ‘tougher sentences’ & ‘more prisons’, but nothing about how a system in crisis will handle all this.

The backlog of Crown Court cases is being cited in an apparent push for juryless trials.
When this debate is being had, I think it’s important to recognise the government’s own role - including today’s announcement - in growing that backlog.

As an addendum, important to note I’m not suggesting attacks on emergency workers aren’t serious. They certainly are.

But if all cases are to be dealt with at Crown Court, the system must be properly funded and resourced, which it hasn’t been for quite some time.