Thread by @TweetingYet

This post by @Keir_Starmer has made me very sad and, the more I think about it, increasingly angry. I consider it to be thoroughly dishonest. I would like to think that it is ignorance but no matter how much I try, I cannot suspend my disbelief enough.

Let me explain why.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1371547120080195585

Before I do, let me clarify that yes, I know that there are all sorts of problems with getting sexual offences to court and that a tiny minority end up in convictions. Those are problems but they are not the particular problems I am addressing here. This is about sentencing.

Let's start with the suggestion that "attacking a statue = 10 years in prison". No. It doesn't. Criminal damage carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

There is no offence of attacking a statue and nobody is talking about making one. This is simple rubbish.

I've explained this in detail in a previous thread but basically at the moment damage under £5,000 has a maximum of 3 months and over £5,000 has a maximum of 10 years. Which doesn't mean that those are the sentences you get. As the former DPP well knows.

The Bill will remove that £5,000 requirement if the damage is to a "memorial". The word "statue" does not appear in the Bill. As the Leader of the Opposition damned well ought to know. Basically it means that damage to memorials is worth £5,001.

So that's a maximum of 10 years. What do you actually get?

Well, take a look for yourselves, by all means. sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown…

The absolute highest sentence in the guideline is 4 years. That's for when there are things like a high degree of planning, intention to cause a high risk of injury, high value, high degree of distress. Even then, the starting point is 18 months.

The former DPP knows this.

We can debate whether a person damaging a memorial would ever get 4 years or more (judges can go above the guideline but only with good reason) or whether they should. But the claim that "attacking a statue = 10 years" is a lie unless it strictly means the maximum. Does it?

Well, if it does then that equals sign changes radically in the next line because the former DPP knows full well that the maximum sentence for rape is life.

He says 5 years. Where does that come from? Again, let's turn to the sentencing guidelines.

sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown…

5 years is the starting point for the lowest possible category of rape. The very lowest sentence that can be imposed within the guidelines is 4 years.

Note that each category has a starting point and a range. 5 years is outside the range for anything but the lowest category.

That means that it's outside the range for anything involving, amongst other things, any planning, previous violence, use of alcohol or drugs, particularly vulnerable victim, abuse of trust, sever psychological harm.

The huge majority of rapes fall outside the lowest category.

I read, but cannot verify, that the average rape sentence is 9 years 9 months. That fits with most lawyers' experience, I suspect.

I will note that this is done before discount for guilty plea, which can be anywhere from 10% to 33%. That applies to rape and criminal damage (and almost all other offences).

Again, we can debate whether the average rape should get more than they do or whether 4 years is adequate for the least serious rape (and yes, all rapes are serious but I do not intend to engage with claims that no rapes are more serious than others - this is a post about law).

The point is this: Sir Keir Starmer's post is dishonest. He deliberately equates the statutory maximum for one offence, which is more than twice the maximum in the guideline, with the very lowest starting point in the guideline for another.

I thought that maybe he was better than this. Apparently not.

This country has had years of @Conservatives dishonesty about the law. Read #FakeLaw by @BarristerSecret if you haven't already. They constantly twist the truth about our laws for their own ends.. The Tories, not SB.

They are aided and abetted in this by the gutter press and some parts of the press who really ought to know better.

I genuinely thought @Keir_Starmer was better than them. I am deeply saddened to see that under him, @UKLabour will not hesitate to twist the truth and deliberately hinder the public understanding of law for their own ends.

That is why tonight I am very sad.