Huge delays in criminal justice, caused *not* by Covid but by government cuts, mean that courts are forced to deal with offenders - including serious assaults - more leniently.
And less of this #FakeLaw please. Covid has not been around for 18 months. The delays in criminal justice have been around for years, and we’re getting worse long before Covid.
Don’t let them lie to you.
For those asking why delay means more lenient sentences, it is set out in the Sentencing Guidelines as a mitigating feature. It should incentivise a “tough on crime” government to properly resource the system to reduce delays.
This government has deliberately increased them.
Why is delay a mitigating factor? Where it’s not a defendant’s fault - ie where a defendant has promptly admitted guilt and the systemic delays been it takes years for them to be sentenced - the Guidelines recognise that this can cause serious difficulties for defendants.
They, like the victims, will have had proceedings hanging over them for years, not knowing their fate. They may (especially if young) have changed their lives in the intervening period - new job, perhaps a young family. They may appear to be successfully rehabilitated.
None of that reduces the pain of the victim, of course. But it does mean that when a court is balancing the competing aims of sentence (punishment, rehabilitation, public protection, restoration and deterrence) there may be strong arguments for keeping an offender out of prison.
As ever, this is not a defence of the sentence in that particular case. Just an explanation of how the law works, and why it is so important, for all concerned, that delay be minimised. Instead, this government has continued to increase delay by refusing to properly fund justice.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Barristers are not our cases. We do not choose our clients because we believe in their cause. If we receive instructions to represent in legal proceedings, we are ethically obliged to act.
It is the same misunderstanding that causes the Home Secretary to attack “activist lawyers” for representing people in immigration cases; the Prime Minister to deride criminal barristers as “lefty do-gooders”.
We take the cases we are given. That way nobody goes unrepresented.
Barristers have a duty not to refuse a case because of its objectionable nature or conduct/beliefs of the client.
If we refused to act for unpopular clients because of public or political pressure, it would be professional misconduct and the rule of law would quickly crumble.
As readers of my books will know, I’m a jury sceptic. I think it’s probably the best system we have, but I believe it is unduly opaque and capable of improvement. I’m not ideologically fervent about a jury of twelve.
But.
We should not be uprooting fundaments of the justice system without careful research into the impact.
For instance.
David Lammy’s 2017 review identified jury trial as “one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality.”
It takes the police years to investigate allegations, because of your government’s cuts to police budgets.
It takes digital investigators years to analyse mobile phones and computers because of your cuts to forensic science and refusal to heed warnings gov.uk/government/new…
Suspects are left in limbo for years, “released under investigation” because your botched reform of bail laws - designed to catch headlines - had consequences that anybody could have foreseen. Cases drift as underresourced police forces are spread thin. lawgazette.co.uk/news/release-u…
Every time we warned, we urged, we begged, we wrote books - trying to draw attention to what government was doing to criminal justice, we were ignored.
Instead the public was treated to foaming nonsense about “soft sentences” and protecting statues.
It is very disappointing to hear the chair of the @MagsAssoc giving evidence to Parliament and suggesting that junior barristers are lying about their experiences of Covid in the magistrates’ courts.
When presented with first person accounts of barristers being compelled to attend magistrates’ courts in person for no good reason, the chair of @MagsAssoc first blames me(!), and then says it is someone “enjoying themselves at our expense on Twitter”.
This is appalling.
By all means use your time in front of the Justice Committee to complain about anonymous Twitter rabbits, but don’t you dare accuse my colleagues of lying, @MagsAssoc. You owe them a public apology.
You don’t have to commit a particularly serious crime to receive 6 months’ imprisonment. You don’t even have to be sentenced at the Crown Court - under Patel’s plans, sentences passed at magistrates’ courts, in conditions of abject chaos, could lead to automatic deportation.
Important to note that there is already a mechanism by which the Home Office can deport foreign nationals who cause serious harm or persistently offend, and who receive sentences of 6 months. But Patel wants to make it automatic, irrespective of harm caused.
The position currently is that any foreign national sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment is liable for automatic deportation. These plans would radically increase the number of people affected.