Solicitors Warn Against Heavy Handed Sentencing After UK Riots

This entry was posted on Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 5:46 pm

By Rebecca Blain, solicitor

Over 1500 arrests have been made and more than 500 charged. The riots in London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool have seen arrests, charges and sentences for a variety of offences. At the most serious end of the spectrum are those arrested for murder in the face of the 5 fatalities that have been claimed by the riots and at the lower those arrested and charged for simple offences such as going equipped for theft.

Many if not most will not be charged with riot at all but rather one of a series of offences depending on their actions and their role. The offences most common will undoubtedly be that of burglary, theft, handling stolen goods, criminal damage, disorderly behaviour, violent disorder, affray and assaults of varying degrees. For some the offence for which they have been arrested and / or charged will be expected – it may be obvious to those who have “looted” shops that theirs will be a charge of burglary. For others, for example those who have caused criminal damage by fire, it may come as a complete shock that they may be arrested and charged with an offence of Arson either with intent or being reckless as to whether life would endangered. Indeed in Croydon a 15 year old boy was met with surprise when his part in setting fire to a shop resulted in a charge of arson with intent to endanger life – an offence punishable by life imprisonment. Similarly, those posting encouraging messages to rioters on social networking sites such as Facebook may be astonished to find themselves arrested for offences of incitement.

A number of organisations and even the prime minister have called for “every rioter” to be sent to jail. Others have criticised the sentences that have been passed down but the last few days have seen sentences of immediate imprisonment for offences of assault, burglary, handling stolen goods and public order offences. Those accused of more serious crimes will appear in the Crown Court at a later date. Many have been remanded into custody.

The reality is that anyone found guilty of playing a role in the riots must be prepared for the consequences particularly where the offences that they have been charged with is punishable by imprisonment. Whatever the offence with which they are charged, it will be aggravated by the circumstances in which it occurred – the riots by their nature mean that in many cases the offence will be considered to have been a group effort as it were. Most, if not all of the offending took place under cover of darkness and night time offending too is seen as an aggravating feature. In addition, the loss not only to the individual businesses or home owners who were looted but also the overall loss to the public purse in the clean up will be taken into consideration. In this time of economic downturn the financial implications and the extent to which they aggravate the seriousness of an offence may well be amplified.

That being said the task of sentencing those convicted falls to the judiciary, a body independent of the government and of course bound by law. For a number of those offences being charged in the wake of the riots sentencing guidelines are available. Sentencing guidelines help the court decide the appropriate sentence. They set out the range that an offender may be sentenced to in view of his offending. For example the range for more serious cases of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) is between 1 and 3 years imprisonment. Where an offender falls within that range will be dependent upon a number of factors including the role that the offender played, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the manner in which it was committed and the previous record of the defendant to name but a few. Here at David Phillips and Partners we have a number of experienced and dedicated criminal defence solicitors, experts that can properly draw the courts attention to relevant factors to make sure that yours is a sentence that is proportionate to the offending. Likewise less serious examples of ABH may be met with a community based penalty, the exercise of properly highlighting relevant factors at the time of sentence can be the difference between jail and a community based sentence.

And it’s not just those that have already been charged that should be seeking legal advice. Now that the riots are quietening down the police in all areas of the country are seeking to trace those that they believe are responsible for criminal acts. Greater Manchester Police have sent the message “..we have your image, we have your face, we have your acts of wanton criminality on film… we are coming for you from today..” In Birmingham the police are using vans with 6 metre screens to parade images of suspects at key locations in the city. Merseyside police are trawling CCTV and have even set up and published a computer link where members of Liverpool’s public can upload images that they have captured on their own phones and cameras to assist police in identifying suspects. The London MET are using face recognition technology intended for the ticketing of the Olympics to uncover the identity of suspects caught on film. But CCTV and photographic imaging is an often overrated tool – it is only useful if you know who you are looking at. In many cases the CCTV and images will be of poor quality. Many participants in the riots chose to obscure their faces with scarves, hats and hoodies. Most offending took place under cover of darkness and at lightening speed. The police have already been criticised for their approach to the riots and it is doubtful that officers will have sought or had time to make notes or secure the type of evidence required to support the identification of suspects. Even if cases where someone claims to “recognise” the suspect, mistakes can be made and the recognition challenged.

If arrested, it can be an intimidating experience particularly for those who have not been arrested before, and, where the branch of the police dealing with your investigation boasts a name such as the “Major Incident Team” all the more daunting. It is important to recognise that you are entitled to free, independent legal advice. Legal representation at the police station can be instrumental in the outcome of your case particularly where an issue such as identification or recognition can be effectively challenged, or if you believe you are a victim of wrongful arrest. The police interview is the foundation of your defence and the team at David Phillips and Partners can help you identify issues at the earliest stage and advise you accordingly. What is more is that our team offer assistance 24 hours a day.

Just as the Prime Minister is calling out for all rioters to be sentenced to jail, threats are being issued that those arrested in connection with the riots will be remanded into custody whilst they await the outcome of their case. The truth is that the presumption is that every defendant is entitled to bail unless there are substantial grounds to believe that they will commit further offences, abscond or interfere with witnesses. Any attempt to impose a blanket policy that results in all “rioters” being remanded without consideration of the relevant factors is unlawful.

There is no room for judgement to be affected by political pressure whether at the police station or at court, whether deciding bail or sentence and solicitors at David Phillips and Partners will fiercely defend your case at every stage.