The police and courts are working around the clock to process the thousands of hours of CCTV footage and the thousands of arrests relating to the UK riots earlier this month. David Cameron has praised the rate of convictions and said,“If we can have that sort of speedy justice … at this time, why can’t we have speedy justice all of the time”. But there is a lot of controversy surrounding the disparity in punishment that speedy justice is producing.
The courts are handing down prison sentences to convicted rioters that are on average 25% longer than normal, according to the Guardian looking at 1,000 riot-related cases dealt with so far by magistrates. This is part of the tough sentencing that David Cameron, Eric Pickles and other top Conservatives are backing to the hilt.
As an example, Michael Gillespie-Doyle was sentenced on the 16th August after pleading guilty to burglary during the riots in Manchester. After an initial wave of looters ransacked a Sainsbury’s, Gillespie-Doyle entered the shop to steal. The police entered the shop as Gillespie-Doyle was ‘reaching out’ for cigarettes and alcohol. Despite showing remorse, the judge sentenced him to 2 years saying, “I have no doubt at all that the principal purpose is that the courts should show that outbursts of criminal behaviour like this will be and must be met with sentences longer than they would be if the offenses had been committed in isolation. ” He then added that the normal sentencing guidelines “can properly be departed from.”
It is clear from what the judge said that he is intent upon being extra hard on the rioters and looters that are caught in order to make up for the crime carried out by all rioters. This means that someone who was in an empty shop, considering stealing, gets punished for all the arson and violence that happened. Is that justice?
David Cameron has said: “What happened on our streets was absolutely appalling behaviour and to send a very clear message that it’s wrong and won’t be tolerated is what the criminal justice system should be doing”, ”They decided in that court to send a tough sentence, send a tough message and it’s very good that courts are able to do that,”
He was talking about the four year sentences given to two young men who started Facebook groups to ‘incite riots’. This is clearly a case of ‘tough sentencing’ but is it proportionate to the crime? Their riots didn’t happen. The sentencing is being compared to a different case one year ago when a man was jailed for four years for being convicted of 24 charges of making, possessing and distributing indecent images of children. He was found with 100,000 images. It may be that the answer is to have tougher sentences on pedophiles but the sense of disproportion of the riot sentences is based on what has been the case rather than what should be the case.
Apart from the lengthy sentencing, one of the major reasons for a sense of injustice is that the punishments are not standardised. This undoubtedly comes from departing from the sentencing guidelines. While two people are sent to prison for four years for inciting riot on Facebook, Joshua M. who was arrested for using Facebook to incite people to attack and loot a local shop in a different town was let off with writing an apology. In fairness, the cases are different – the first two cases involved setting up Facebook events whereas Joshua merely posted a lot of comments on his profile. But none of their intended riots happened and the shopowner targeted by Joshua must still have been terrified with the prospect of being attacked. The gulf between sentences is extraordinary. Again, this example does not necessarily show that the 4 year sentences were too long but perhaps that a letter of apology is too little. What it does show is some people being made an example of and others being treated leniently.
Other examples of unequal sentencing happened between those early and those later on in this wave of ‘speedy justice’. David Attoh was one of the first convicted after being caught with two stolen Burberry t-shirts. He was told the two days he’s spent in prison while awaiting sentencing was enough. Perhaps the difference between Attoh and Gillespie-Doyle (2 years) is that the judge thought enough of Attoh to say “you have a bright future ahead of you” or perhaps it’s because tougher sentences have been handed out as public outcry has followed the initially lighter sentences. Regardless, the difference between two days and two years will fuel the sense of injustice for many.
The post-code, arbitrary lottery of judging extends to whether bail is granted or not. Alexis Bailey, the school worker arrested in Richer Sounds in Croydon has been granted bail until his sentencing at a later point. On the other hand, 18 year old Daniel Sartain-Clarke who was arrested coming out of Curry’s in Clapham is remanded in Feltham until mid-september after being denied bail. Bail decisions depend upon the defendant but in these cases, bail would normally be granted and the only difference is that Sartain-Clarke was prosecuted in a different borough and at a later date.
Sartain-Clarke’s family are at the centre of controversy over evictions of families related to rioters. Once again there is an inequality with sentencing. If two families live in housing block, one renting privately, the other renting from the council and both have one member who was involved in the riots, then the courts have the option of adding extra punishment to the one in social housing. Is it justice to add extra sentencing to someone based on their social class or situation? Fair for the taxpayer but unfair on society.
Cries of ‘collective punishment’ have been made in relation to the Sartain-Clarke case because his mother is the one served with the eviction notice and his 8 year old sister would be evicted too. But the collective punishment extends to the fact that each of those that are caught and convicted will be punished for all of those that took part.
The courts, police and prison services should be applauded for dealing with such an unprecedented level of work. Their’s is generally a thankless task and they are working overtime to restore law and order. However, this “speedy justice” that David Cameron is so proud of and would like to see rolled out all the time, quite clearly is not Justice in terms of punishments that meet the crime, equality in punishment and punishments that try to resolve a problem.
It is wrong to punish a shoplifter for the crimes of an arsonist. It is wrong to evict a child because of what her brother has done. It is wrong to ‘depart from sentencing guidelines’. It is wrong to punish someone ‘to send a message’ because all that means is that unfair punishment is allowed when it’s for the greater good.
Unfair punishment breeds a sense of injustice, widens social divisions and will see further riots, crime and violence in future.
