[Closed] London riots

[i] "If people realised how few police there are and how far away they probably are there'd be a lot more crime".[/i]

You know, when cops say this sort of thing, it reminds me how bafflingly stupid they can be sometimes.

Footflaps/NW dont you be bringing the actual facts into this debate whilst Hora is waxing lyrical about it.

"If people realised how few police there are and how far away they probably are there'd be a lot more crime".

Just as well crime is on a downward trend and has been for years....

[jivebunney hat on]

loads of big drugs busts prior to the riots meant that prices went up, faced with the olympics in less than 12 months and the bad press, the people who do, flooded the market, and the rioters calmly went back indoors

BoJo's fault Operation Target,

http://www.****/news/article-2001046/Boris-Johnson-police-raiders-bust-drugs-suspect-Rambo.html

Anyone know the clip? Police shoulder barged blokes off bikes etc. Clip shot from a flat looking down.

Yeap - I saw it.

Has anyone blamed Thatcher yet?

Me! Me! I blame Thatcher! 😀

but no, he was never in the riot or part of the riot. That wasn't disputed by the court, it was never suggested otherwise and he wasn't charged with any other public order defence. You've basically imagined all of this.

See, just like I said, an innocent bystander, merrily walking back home from his girlfriends at half two in the morning when it's been on the news for hours that the most serious rioting seen in decades is going on in the neighbourhood, like you do...

I suppose the Court were supposed to believe that the stripy shirt and swag bag were just fancy dress as well, eh Northwind? 😆

He wasn't an innocent bystander; he's a convicted petty thief. He just wasn't a rioter, yet was treated as one.

No, he was not a 'petty thief'

He was a burglar.

According to the judge:

[i]"The burglary of commercial premises in circumstances such as this where substantial and wholesale public disorder has taken place is in effect what is commonly called looting.”
He said Robinson’s previous good character and early plea of guilty to a non-dwelling burglary, as well as the low value of goods stolen, the fact he was in education, and his remorse, were in his favour.
These meant he would not be sending the looter to the Crown Court where he would face a possible higher sentence.
But the judge said: “The aggravating features are the background of serious public disorder and your part in that.”[/i]

The maximum sentence for burglary is ten years - it's far from being a 'petty crime'

You appear to be making a case that he should have been charged with a lesser crime than the one he pled guilty to - well, if he didn't think he had committed the crime, then he could always have pled not guilty!

Dread to think what would have happened to rioters if it had been under Tony or Gordons watch, they couldnt even handle dissenting pensioners at party conferences.

I'm not sure the Manchester video was riot related. It was just posted on FB at the time of the rioting. It showed how GMP don't do softly softly ever and eluded to the pussy footing antics of the MET.

[img] [/img]

joolsburger - Member

All of those sentenced could have avoided any jail time or indeed any action at all by staying indoors and not being part of the riot. That's that as far as I'm concerned. The apologists should be ashamed of themselves.

[i][b]....could have avoided any jail time or indeed any action at all by staying indoors and not being part of the riot[/b][/i]

You can use that ridiculous argument for any eventuality, eg, if someone was shot dead for stealing a bottle of gin then they could have avoided that by not stealing, if someone gets a £2,000 fine for parking illegally then they could have avoided the fine if they had parked legally, if someone gets three and a half year in prison for cycling at night without lights then they could have avoided being jailed by ensuring that they had functioning lights, and so on. None of it somehow justifies the sentences of course, even if you do add [i]"they could have avoided....."[/i]

[i][b]The apologists should be ashamed of themselves.[/b][/i]

Yes I am deeply ashamed of thinking that 6 months imprisonment is an inappropriate punishment for stealing £3.85 worth of bottled water. And saying so is of course exactly the same as saying that stealing is just fine.

🙄

Ernie

If someone broke in to your house and didn't steal anything, because there was nothing there they wanted, should they get off scot free because sending them to prison for not stealing anything was excessive?

If water bottle boy had turned left instead of right, and found a case of vodka, or a bag containing ten grand in till takings, do you think he would have left it there?

[url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/murder-and-robbery-among-6000-offences-committed-by-rioters-since-2011-10035784.html ]London rioters and repeat offences[/url]

Fuel for the fire.

.....should they get off scot free

Yes because saying that 6 months for stealing £3.85 worth of bottled water is an inappropriate sentence is [u]exactly[/u] the same as saying "they should get off scot free".

Just like saying that looters shouldn't be shot on sight is [u]exactly[/u] the same as saying that looting is just fine.

🙄

ffs

Ok, so what is an appropriate sentence for a burglar that breaks in, has a look around to see if there is anything worth taking, but finds nothing and leaves without actually stealing anything then Ernie?

Now, what's an appropriate sentence for the same burglar, breaking into the same property, on the same day and time, and looking around, but this time he finds and takes a gold Rolex worth ten grand?

Ok, so what is an appropriate sentence for a burglar that breaks in, has a look around to see if there is anything worth taking, but leaves without actually stealing anything then Ernie?

Oh - probably about 6 months unless it's my house then 10 minutes in a room with them with a hammer and chisel.

ninfan - Member

The maximum sentence for burglary is ten years - it's far from being a 'petty crime'

You appear to be making a case that he should have been charged with a lesser crime than the one he pled guilty to

Do you actually believe any of this pish? Non-domestic burglary by its definition is only a serious crime when aggravated by the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, or with intent to cause damage to a building or anything in it. This was de facto not a serious crime.

The maximum sentence of 10 years you mentioned is only applicable for a category one, serious burglary, and so is not relevant

His was a category one offence [i]arguably[/i] raised to category 2 because of the context of general disorder. (though in reality it almost certainly didn't satisfy the "greater harm" criteria and so realistically should have been treated as a category 3- the guidelines are clear that general disorder should be taken to account where it actually caused greater harm, which it's hard to argue was the case.

And the judge also ignored that both possible factors suggesting reduced harm were identified. In short, the decision to raise the severity to category 2 was very dubious in the first place.

But, that's what happened so let's consider it.

The sentencing range for a category 2 is from low-level community service, to 51 weeks custody. The start point is 18 weeks. The start point is to be used except where [i]multiple[/i] features of culpability and harm were identified- not the case, only one was identified and even that was dubious. So it should have started from 18 weeks.

The judge acknowledged a substantial list of mitigating factors, and there was only the most minor factor increasing seriousness (that it was committed at night) (1), but he was sentenced well above the start point where the sentencing guidance (2) says it's far beneath.

(1 before you say it- no, the rioting doesn't increase the seriousness of a category 2 burglary- it increased the sentencing by increasing the offence to category 2. It should then have been sentenced within the normal category 2 guidelines).

(2 and again before you say it, the riots didn't provide a special circumstance outwith the sentencing guidelines- that's commonly repeated but the truth is that the sentencing guidelines specifically include crimes committed against a background of general disorder and how any greater harm caused is to be taken into account)

He should then have received a further sentencing consideration for pleading guilty.

Then after all of that, the judge is required to consider whether a custodial sentence is unavoidable, and if so whether it can be suspended. It wasn't unavoidable, and it certainly could have been suspended.

So to recap... the judge took a start point of 18 weeks, already rather dubious, and was required to consider the one minor factor increasing seriousness (ie, nighttime), and the 4 more significant points reducing seriousness, and then take into account the guilty, plea. And then impose a custodial sentence only where unavoidable, and if so to consider suspending it... and despite all of those factors that should have led him to a sentence below the start point, somehow decided that the offence was considerably above the start point and should not be suspended. It made no sense and was categorically against the sentencing guidelines

(which, one more time with feeling, specifically included circumstances of general disturbance like this, no matter how often we were told otherwise)

So no, I'm not making a case that he should have been tried for a lesser offence, that's just nonsense. You seem totally unwilling to engage with the facts or the argument, in the same way you chose to ignore most of my earlier post despite it being in direct response to your challenge.

I'm making the case that he should have been tried and sentenced for the offence he committed- either a major category 3 most likely, or in the extreme a more minor category 2. And the sentencing guidelines are clear on what that means.

Footflaps/NW.

What do you class as 'being part of a riot'?

At the front throwing rocks?

He was out on a Sunday night at 2.40am in what area exactly? Salford? Where the Police were really struggling to contain a large element?

Anyone normal would have AVOIDED the area/gone round. To go in. Probably realised all the booze n meat had been lifted? No sir I was just passing through not part of the group...sure sweetheart.

The clip I mentioned. Looks to me the GMP were partly in riot kit? So not from earlier footage. But who knows?

Going back to that lad. They would not have jailed him for just trying to steal water.

Show me the full court transcript.

Where in Law does it say 'make an example'? I'm sure he was treated firmly and robustly based on the facts. Not 'just happened to walk in'

Sorry I say buttocks

Looks like they have riot shields and riot helmets. Never seen the Police wearing these out on a normal night.

So is it pre riots....

Aren't there less police now?

Do you actually believe any of this pish?

That said that is a fair mullering you just gave him [ no tthat he will take it on board

Excellent posts and in considerable detail

Anyone normal would have AVOIDED the area/gone round

Anyone normal would not be arguing with the evidence.
and say this for example

They would not have jailed him for just trying to steal water

He did not try he managed to and that wae all he was charged with. Did you see NW post any of them 🙄

However I like the fact you both ask for more evidence [ as if you cannot google yourself], ignore all the facts given to you and them make a definitive ruling at the same time
Most wise M'lord Most wise

One question I couldn't find an answer to... What was the result of his appeal? Anyone know? I heard that 30% of all of the riot trials were overturned or had the sentences reduced under appeal (against an average succesful appeal rate of, I believe, 0.26%) but I don't know how good that statistic was- the appeals got very little coverage.

hora - Member

What do you class as 'being part of a riot'?

First, there's a riot- a violent disturbance. And then, you take part in it. Simple really.

They did target the Bang & Olufsen shop here in Manchester so at least a few of them had half a brain.

If they'd had a whole brain they'd have gone after anything other than B&O.

Go on then, what would you have had away then Count ?

Northwind... One problem there, everything you said was irrelevant, because the courts were acting under the specific guidance that the seriousness of the situation allowed them to disregard sentencing guidelines if they saw fit 😆

Edit: You even stated that

the [u]riots didn't provide a special circumstance outwith the sentencing guidelines[/u] - that's commonly repeated but the truth is that the sentencing guidelines specifically include crimes committed against a background of general disorder and how any greater harm caused is to be taken into account)

Whereas the court of appeal said:

[i]However [u]none of these guidelines contemplated the offences with which they are concerned would take place within the context of the nationwide public disorder to which we have referred.[/u] Therefore sentences beyond the range in the guidelines for conventional offending (i.e. offending which lacked the aggravating features of widespread public disorder common to these appeals) were not only appropriate, but for the reasons we have already given, inevitable[/i]

So Northy, it's you versus the LCJ... Who should we believe?

In what world could that possibly be considered irrelevant?

😆

Yes that's absolutely hilarious.

I think it means you've won.

Point of order:

Source for court of appeal FULL judgement please as Google does not find your quote

Regards

Linked on my post at the bottom of page one junky 😀

Plenty of discussion on the inapplicability of sentencing guidelines, including my quote, at paras 10-20

Ah, Ninfan the king of the edit.

Regarding the appeals court decision- all of the cases referred to in that ruling which did not have their appeals withheld, were directly involved in the rioting. The 3 exceptions all had their appeals upheld. So, it is not relevant to the case we're discussing where the defendant played no part in the rioting- it is directed at rioters.

Which brings me neatly back to a point I made earlier in the thread, which you ignored- the Crown Court has ruled in that it was [i]wrong in principle[/i] to apply more severe sentences to those not involved in the rioting (the case of Nevin) There's no contradiction between these 2, and my argument is entirely about the latter situation.

Regarding the guidance received by the courts; there's 2 different points here. The first is that it [i]entirely[/i] proves my point. Political intervention in sentencing played a part in the excessive sentences handed down. And applying that guidance to those not directly involved in the rioting has been subsequently found to be wrong in principle.

You seem to misunderstand; I'm not arguing that a single individual did something wrong- that [i]would[/i] be countered by the guidance. I'm arguing that the entire process of excessive sentences for those not directly involved in the rioting was wrong- as the Crown Court subsequently ruled.

The second is that the guidance itself is widely held to have been contrary to the Coroners and Justice Act, which states that the Definitive Guidelines MUST be followed except in certain specific exceptions, which it has not been demonstrated were met. As has been observed, the guidelines themselves, are not law. But the law requires that they be followed. Similiarly the terms of the CJA 2003 regarding thresholds for imprisonment can't be overruled by guidance.

The three exceptions were convictions for handling goods, not burglary/looting, which is what both water boy and the upheld sentences were for.

These guidelines do take into account situations like the 2011 riots- it's simply wrong to say otherwise.

The Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales says you are wrong

I just edited that bit out for brevity so it'll look confusing now; but as I said in the original version, go and read the guidelines, "context of general public disorder" is right there in the specific offence in this case, and goes directly to the level of sentencing. It may well be absent from others? That could explain the contradiction, I can't see what else could, it's a simple matter of fact.

ninfan - Member

The three exceptions were convictions for handling goods, not burglary/looting, which is what both water boy and the upheld sentences were for.

Not relevant; the point is that all of the cases referred to were specifically involved in the rioting. The separate Crown Court ruling was specific to those not directly involved in the rioting, where it was found to be wrong in principle to punish them more severely. Clearly this case falls under that category.

They weren't, Lorraine McGranes case in particular was that she picked up the telly in the street and was not 'involved' in the rioting. A clear division was drawn between the handling offences which were opportunistic and committed sometime [b]after[/b] the burglaries had occurred - water boys crime was not disconnected in this manner, he was convicted of burglary, so falls in the same bracket as the upheld convictions. The judgement states that the burglaries themselves were intrinsic to the disorder.

You also dismiss the elephant in the room, that the judge might not have believed water boys assertion that he was just innocently walking home from his girlfriends at half two while the riot went on around him...

Regardless, you're still cracking on about the guidelines, when the LCJ could not be more clear that they did not apply - I am happy to break it down

[i]However none of these guidelines contemplated the offences with which they are concerned would take place within the context of the nationwide public disorder to which we have referred. [/i]

Is the opposite of what you claim

[i]Therefore sentences beyond the range in the guidelines for conventional offending (i.e. offending which lacked the aggravating features of widespread public disorder common to these appeals) were not only appropriate, but for the reasons we have already given, inevitable.[/i]

Is also the opposite to what you claim

Which bit of it don't you understand?

The bit where it [i]is[/i] in the guidance for this specific offence, which you can read yourself. As I explained, a couple of times now.

Re Lorraine Graves, you contradict your own link.

"When she was interviewed on the following day she explained that she had been returning home when she saw a mob attacking the Argos shop, and she followed the mob inside. She watched the store being raided. A man carried a television out of the stock room and put it on the floor. She picked it up and walked out of the store."

I'll leave you to argue with yourself on that point, if you like.

Your so called elephant is a pink one; the judge accepted that version of events, it was not challenged at all. No evidence was put forward to contradict it or to place him in the riots or involved with them. He was convicted based on his version of events, in short, and the judge felt that version of events justified the sentence. You may imagine that actually he was out rioting, as Hora does; judgement and sentencing is based on evidence not your imagination.

So once again, the crown court ruling clearly applies here.

What you're essentially saying is "Maybe he committed some other offences which nobody ever mentioned, that'd justify the sentence if it had happened". Which strikes me as weird- if you think the sentence is justified, why invent explanations for its severity?

He was convicted on his version of events

Yes, for burglary, a crime that the appeal court States was intrinsic to the disorder, and to be treated differently from merely handling stolen goods - though since we mention it, have a look at the reduced sentences for merely handling stolen goods!

Appeal courts set precedent, crown courts don't 😀

ninfan - Member

Yes, for burglary, a crime that the appeal court States was intrinsic to the disorder,

Where does the appeal court state that his offence was intrinsic to the disorder?

ninfan - Member

Appeal courts set precedent, crown courts don't

Except when the judge is a High Court judge. Which, oh, he is. Whoops.

" not every handling offence committed during the public disorder was as intrinsic to it as, say, the burglaries of shops which had been smashed and looted. The sentences must recognise these distinctions."

OK, that's actually a good point. A moot one of course since that comment isn't part of his ruling on the burglary offences, so there's no relevant binding precedent (and the comment obviously isn't intended to set a serious point of law, it's too offhand). But still, point well made- it's clearly his opinion that all burglary offences connected to the riots were more intrinsic to them, and the handling offences less so. If he was to rule on the subject that's presumably how he'd rule, which'd overrule the crown court if they were in direct conflict.

PS- maybe we should tell him that you can't be more or less intrinsic? His meaning seems clear but the wording's poor.

Aside- I don't know the point of law, crown courts are held inferior to the high court, but what happens when a high court judge is sitting in the crown court? He can create precedent so, presumably that's applied with the force of the high court position rather than the crown court sitting? It's not relevent here, I'm just curious, I hadn't thought about it before.

Not a researched answer but a High Court judge Sitting in the Crown Court would not set Binding Precedent . For one he sits alone not as part of a panel . But people as in judges would take what he says seriously and he could certainly send a message and set a mood .