Lord chief justice says if other crown courts had circulated alternative tariffs it would have been a 'recipe for chaos'
Lord Justice Leveson, one of three appeal judges, criticised the sentencing initiative in Manchester of Judge Andrew Gilbart. Photograph: Wpa Pool/Getty Images
A Manchester judge who made influential comments on sentencing offenders in the immediate aftermath of the August riots has been criticised by the appeal court.
If other crown courts had circulated alternative tariffs for various crimes it would have been a "recipe for chaos" in the judicial system, the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, warned.
Disapproval of the comments by Judge Andrew Gilbart QC, the recorder of Manchester, came from all three judges sitting in the appeal court on Tuesday as they began considering the first cases to come before them from the summer disturbances.
The hearing follows concerns expressed last month by senior legal figures that some prison terms imposed on rioters were unduly harsh.
The former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, cautioned that the courts risked being swept up in a "collective loss of proportion".
Opening the appeal caes, the judges - Lord Judge, Lord Justice Thomas and Lord Justice Leveson – said they would view BBC television news coverage of the riots before they decided whether any of the sentences handed down were disproportionate. They would only watch material already broadcast.
Nine men and one woman are appealing against what their lawyers allege was the "manifestly excessive" length of their custodial sentences. None are challenging their convictions.
Three of the appellants appeared in court: Lorriane McGrane, a 19-year-old Territorial Army soldier from Peckham, south-east London; Enrico Vanasco, a 25-year-old chef from Manchester; and Hassan Koyuncu, an 18-year-old from north London.
Two of the appellants, Jordan Blackshaw, 20, from Northwich, Cheshire, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, from Warrington, Cheshire, had posted notices on Facebook inviting people to participate in riots in their home towns. Both received four years in prison. Their lawyers told the court that what their clients had done was "monumentally foolish", "hugely stupid" and "hugely shortsighted".
Gareth Roberts, representing Blackshaw, said the judge imposing the sentence "had failed to consider the leading authorities in relation to riot sentences [set] following the Bradford riots [in 2001] where sentences of four years were given to those carrying crossbows and wielding scaffolding poles".
But the lord chief justice implied that the appeal court viewed this summer's disturbances as more serious because they were far more widespread.
"[The Bradford cases] are not guideline cases," he said. "The Bradford riots were confined to Bradford. One of our concerns is that these were nationwide.
"At the moment we are inclined to consider that we should take that into consideration."
Addressing the "guidelines" formulated by Gilbart in Manchester as the courts began to process offenders, the appeal court justices were equally dismissive.
Leveson, who is also chairman of the Sentencing Council, said: "What concerns me is that the judge ... started to give sentence ranges ... for offences with which he was not concerned. That's not even something this court does."
To read the full article follow the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/27/riot-judge-sentencing-guidelines-criticised?CMP=twt_guhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/27/riot-judge-sentencing-guidelines-criticised?CMP=twt_gu
No comments:
Post a Comment