The Secret Barrister Profile picture
Jun 4, 2022 12 tweets 6 min read Read on X
As people have asked (and you only have yourselves to blame)…

1. The precise charge isn’t reported, which is a huge error for reasons we’ll get to. But in any event, whatever the charge, there is no criminal offence in existence that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.
2. “Prosecutors decided to pursue him on the lightest possible charge”. That charge is not specified. Presumably that means he was charged with possession of a controlled drug of Class B, rather than possession with intent to supply or production/cultivation of cannabis. But…
3. …if he was indeed charged with simple possession of cannabis, the Sentencing Guideline provides a starting point of a fine, and a range as low as a discharge (no action taken). So this doesn’t square with a community order being “the lowest possible sentence”.
4. Further light/confusion is shed when you read the report in the Independent. For instance, that curious comment by the judge suggesting the Defendant would have been “applauded” if the law were different? It wasn’t the judge. independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
5. Although the Grimsby Telegraph, which carries a similar correction, has the name of the judge as “Sue Fortune”, rather than the Independent’s “Geraldine Kelly”. So who knows who said what. grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-n…
6. The Independent appears to be the proud source of this story, boasting the “exclusive”. It also believes that a 6-month community order handed down by Grimsby magistrates’ court amounts to a “landmark ruling”, in what may be news to the Court of Appeal and UK Supreme Court.
7. In fairness to the reporter, their enthusiasm might have been fuelled by the comments attributed to the defence representative. I’ll be corrected by others, but in my experience there is nothing remotely unusual about a 6-month community order. I’ve seen scores.
8. Of course, in all three news reports, nobody bothers to report what charges the defendant actually faced. Which is really quite vital if your hook is “the CPS pursued a really low charge and the judge passed a really low sentence in this unusual case.”
9. And finally, kudos to Grimsby Telegraph for imbuing the Crown Prosecution Service with the power to *sentence* defendants.

Even when charges are *not pursued*. 🤯

(N.B. The Independent did *not* make this error, contrary to what is asserted below)
10. So there you have it. An absolute trifle of #FakeLaw and abominable journalism.

The cause, it seems, is that no qualified court reporter was actually in court to hear what happened.

This is a huge problem. Local court reporters are the lifeblood of democracy. We need them.
11. Good local court reporters ensure that the public know what is happening in their justice system. They hold power to account. They preserve open justice.

But they, like local journalism as a whole, are endangered.

Without them, as this story shows, we are in trouble.
P.S. Thanks to @legalstyleblog for this correction. I’d overlooked that in 2019 the government abandoned centuries of convention regarding maximum sentences and introduced 15 years (previous highest increments were 14 years and life) as the maximum for certain terrorism offences.

• • •

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

Jul 29
It is regrettable that whoever wrote this thread did so in apparent ignorance of what the law actually says.

It is really rather wildly misleading.

[THREAD 🧵]
The thread offers a hypothetical of a person breaking a car window to rescue a child, only to find themselves charged with criminal damage and prevented by the judge from mentioning this critical circumstance to the jury.

Just like climate activists.

Only…it’s false.
Image
Image
If you’re sitting cosily for a law lecture (and who among us is not?), the issue arises from one of the legal defences available to criminal damage.

It is a defence if you believe the owner consented or *would have consented* had they known of the damage and its circumstances. Image
Read 12 tweets
Jan 9
As the issue of compensation for miscarriages of justice is rightly in the news, it’s timely to note that in 2014, the government changed the law to make it all but impossible for people wrongly convicted and imprisoned to claim compensation.
Chris Grayling and Theresa May led the charge to deprive the wrongly convicted of compensation, changing the rules so that those people had to effectively prove their innocence - an impossible standard to meet.

The details are in Stories of The Law & How It’s Broken.

Image
Image
Image
When this spiteful non-compensation scheme was challenged in the courts, the current crop of politicians - those who are now positioning themselves as champions of the wrongfully convicted - fought all the way to uphold it.

amp.theguardian.com/law/2018/may/0…
Read 4 tweets
Dec 3, 2023
Can highly recommend this piece in today’s Sunday Times if you’re looking for a facile misunderstanding of what a barrister actually does.

If Mr Syed had bothered to speak to a barrister, or indulge in the most cursory research, he would have learned at least two things: 🧵

Image
Image
Image
1. 90% of a barrister’s career is spent on making decisions. Advising on courses of action, of legal risk, future consequences, assessing evidence and making split-second judgement calls (both in and out of court) that can make an irrevocable decision to a person’s life. Image
2. It’s an obvious one, and an old favourite, but given that it seems to take Mr Syed by surprise:

BARRISTERS ARE NOT THEIR CLIENTS.

We ask questions in court and test evidence, on behalf of whoever instructs us, because that is our job.

We are not expressing personal views. Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 3, 2023
Ah, hello old friend.

It’s been a while.

Let’s hop back on the horse: Why this story about legal aid is as misleading as it is brainless.

[THREAD] 🧵

#LegalAidLies
Readers are invited to conclude that £100,000 (£100,028, to be precise) is too much to spend on this very serious case, in which an MP was murdered. A “ridiculous amount of money”, we’re reliably told by Conservative MP @nigelmills.

Well let’s see. Image
The first teeny, tiny point - and I really am being picky - is that, despite @nigelmills confidently asserting that the defendant “admitted the killing”, that’s not actually true. Not really.

Because the same article tells us that he denied murder and had a 7-day trial. Image
Read 22 tweets
Jul 24, 2023
There is something I've been reluctant to talk about.

I didn't ever want to really talk about it. But the question has been asked, and if one person is thinking it, others may be too.

So I'll address it head on:

How is Taylor Swift's legal analysis in "no body, no crime"? 🧵
🎵He did it, he did it🎵

She says as the sirens blare. Nothing like a quick rush to judgement before literally *any* evidence has been called, eh Swifty?

But let's allow for the fact that you're worried about your friend, and look at some of the evidential principles in play.
First though, house rules:

Unfamiliar with the full lyrics? Then take the time to listen *in full* before going any further.

If you haven't read the sentencing remarks, you're in no position to comment.

Read 17 tweets
Mar 25, 2023
A final (for now) word on my colleagues who don’t and can’t prosecute criminal cases, but are performatively declaring that they *won’t* prosecute certain types of cases.

This second paragraph vividly illustrates the danger to which they are exposing us criminal practitioners.
The whole point of the cab rank rule is that it provides the answer to the question: “How can you represent [X]?”, when X is an unpopular client or cause.

The minute we are perceived to be picking and choosing between “good” and “bad” defendants, it all breaks down.
It means - as the activists explicitly state - that other barristers can be targeted. “Your colleagues refuse to represent X, so why are you?”

It aligns us personally with our clients.

It exposes those of us who defend & prosecute the most dangerous criminals to very real risk
Read 4 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(