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.
This lecture explores the cinematic classic 'My Cousin Vinny' through the lens of English and Welsh law.
Contributions and observations are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.
This paper considers, inter alia, how the irrepressible journey of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini might have been different had he been practising English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of England and Wales.
Now, the eagle eyed among you may notice as the film unfolds, this documentary is based in America (USA). I, by contrast, am *not* based in America (USA). And I know very little about law or criminal procedure in Alabama, New York or anywhere else of relevance to this exercise.
I see that a famously apolitical barrister is once again offering his neutral expert view on criminal law - which just so happens (as always) to exonerate the government - while omitting to mention that he is a Conservative counsellor and does not specialise in criminal law.
Councillor. COUNCILLOR.
I’m an idiot.
The entire premise of the article is based on a misunderstanding of criminal law. Again. (We saw this when the same writer attempted to offer expertise on the Colston 4, to disastrous effect).
“Disruptive action” actually means “barristers declining to continue to work for free to plug the gaps in the criminal justice system that I and my political colleagues have defunded to the point of collapse”.
“Disruptive action” means exercising our right, as self-employed individuals, to decline to cover other people’s cases when chaotic court listing makes it impossible for barristers to attend hearings.
The system runs on our goodwill.
Politicians have exploited it for too long.
The criminal courts were in chaos long before Covid, as detailed in my first book published in 2018.
Since then, @jcartlidgemp and co have further slashed funding to criminal justice, sending delays and case backlogs soaring.
As for “patience” - the government promised to “review” criminal legal aid after their most recent round of savage cuts in 2018.
They have done nothing.
Meanwhile solicitors firms are closing and junior barristers are working for below minimum wage.
We have been patient.
The independent review that has finally, belatedly been published, makes clear that as a bare minimum, £35m must be *immediately* invested to stop the criminal Bar from collapsing.
For context, the government saved £240m in legal aid last year by not paying us for work done.
I regret to have to do this, but as Steven is in this article holding himself out as a barrister, without disclosing that he does not practise criminal law, some corrections are required to the multiple factual errors. [THREAD]
We start with an appeal to the views of two “eminent lawyers”. Both are indeed eminent, much better lawyers than I will ever be, and genuinely lovely chaps to boot. But I’m sure they won’t mind me saying that they don’t practise crime, and were offering reactions, not analysis.
“It turns out…”
There is nothing remotely surprising or unusual about this. Any criminal lawyer - literally any - will tell you that criminal juries deal with factual judgements - such as how genuine somebody’s belief is - every single day.