Share this page!

The Secret Barrister Profile picture
Twitter logo
15 Mar, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Increasing the maximum sentence for damaging a statue to 10 years is stupid, yes. It reflects distorted priorities, yes.

But the maximum sentence for rape is life, not 5 years.

This is a bad point that does nothing for public understanding. #FakeLaw
For those struggling (and there are seemingly many), he has cited the maximum theoretical sentence for damaging a statue, and compared it to a figure plucked out of the air, but significantly below the average sentence imposed, for rape.

Intellectually dishonest.
You can make the point that increasing the maximum sentence for low-value damage of statues to 10 years is idiotic, populist guff.

You can make the point that the criminal justice system fails to tackle sexual violence (for many reasons).

But that tweet makes neither point.
And it is disheartening beyond measure to see the Opposition descend into a populist arms race on “tough sentencing”, when they know - they *know* - that the problems in criminal justice are so, so much more than that.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BarristerSecret

The Secret Barrister Profile picture
14 Mar
Any politician of any party who claims that the answer to tackling violence against women is simply a matter of “tougher sentences” is not being honest with the public.

Let me tell you about a case I’m currently prosecuting. [THREAD]
The case involves allegations of serious domestic violence and coercive/controlling behaviour. The offences go back to 2016. They were reported in 2017. This is not unusual in cases of domestic abuse - often victims delay reporting out of fear.
It then took eighteen months for the police to investigate.

Eighteen months.

Why? Partly because this case, like many of its type, relied on mobile phone evidence. Texts to show the defendant’s behaviour, or to prove contemporaneous complaint by the complainant to her friends.
Read 17 tweets
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
13 Mar
There’s understandably a lot of concern over this case given the reported facts. As ever, full details are unacceptably thin on the ground, but taking this report at face value, there are serious questions over the sentence. [THREAD]
This is the description of the offence. It was charged as sexual assault (section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003), which carries a maximum of 10 years.

And here is the Sentencing Guideline:
On the reported facts, this was a violent sexual assault in the street. Category 1 harm.

He followed her for at least a minute before attacking her. I struggle to see how this is “opportunistic”. There was clearly some planning, although perhaps not a “significant degree”.
Read 7 tweets
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
11 Feb
There’s an intriguing overlap on here between those complaining that lockdown restrictions on liberty are a barbaric assault on human rights and those who in ordinary times insist that being locked in a 4.5m sq prison cell for 23 hours a day is a “holiday camp”.
“THEY HAVE TVs IN THEIR 4.5 METRE SQUARED BOXES IN WHICH THEY DEFECATE IN FRONT OF VIOLENT STRANGERS, HOW IS THAT ANY SORT OF PUNISHMENT?” etc etc.
Maybe - just maybe - the punitive effect of loss of liberty *in itself* might be a little more widely understood once we emerge from all of this.
Read 4 tweets
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
8 Feb
We are seeing this more and more.

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.

The government owes victims an apology.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…
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.
Read 7 tweets
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
30 Jan
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.

Critics of @DinahRoseQC misunderstand the function of the Bar.
lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyers-r…
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.
Read 6 tweets
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
27 Jan
Thoroughly depressing to see Labour buy into the government myth that uprooting our criminal justice system is the way to deal with the trial backlog.

Properly funding the criminal justice system is the way to deal with the backlog.
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.”
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @BarristerSecret has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @BarristerSecret!

Read all threads by @BarristerSecret