23. May. 2010. – 13:35:08
Being a long serving member of an urban bench, meeting and sitting with newly appointed colleagues is usually a refreshing experience. Owing to the age profile where I sit we have had around two dozen new faces in the retiring room in the last eighteen months. They range in age and profile from thirty something hedge fund managers and high flying civil servants, forty something housewives, fifty something ex police officers, one rabbi, one well known in her field female entrepreneur, and two sixty something retired lawyers. Some are black, some are Asian, most are white. At least one is severely physically disabled. I am pleased that none is younger than in his/her thirties and that contrary to some colleagues` opinions I am not unhappy that we have no deaf or blind appointees.
When sitting with recently appointed Justices who by this stage have had extensive and expensive training there is one factor which no amount of preparation can equip them with and that is a backlog of experience in sentencing. Six months` custody is the courts` maximum. Faced eg with a defendant with no criminal record convicted after trial of punching, kicking and pushing to the floor his pregnant wife where on the ladder of punishment do you place this man? With experience one thinks back to previous similar assaults and compares the situation with aggravating and mitigating features of other assaults. In other words a template in the mind is added to the official guidelines. When that process is explained to a new colleague his or her reluctance to consider the maximum sentence as a possibility is overcome in a logical structured fashion.
On one aspect of sentencing all colleagues are in agreement. We do not take any pleasure in imposing jail sentences. Contrary to the outbursts of some ignorant politicians there are sometimes occasions when there is no other option.
Such was the case earlier this year when Graham was in the dock. He was thirty nine going on sixty. His face was custard coloured, his hair....what he had....hadn`t been combed or washed for months, his sweat shirt was more sweat than shirt and his jeans were about two sizes too big for somebody approaching six foot and only about nine stone. He appeared for sentencing for breaching the punishment for theft of a few items from a supermarket imposed two months previously; a 7.00pm - 7.00am three month curfew. It wasn`t that he`d got home a little late on one occasion or left a little early one morning; he had been away from his address for at least five of the curfew hours on seven times in a month.
He had four pages of "previous". He had had every sentence in the book for drug possession, three courses of drug rehabilitation, umpteen thefts and robberies and had been inside many times. Indeed he had been released from prison for a previous low value theft only two weeks prior to having committed the offence for which he was given a curfew with that bench`s remarks noted on the court file," We are imposing a curfew and not custody. We are giving you a final opportunity to try to sort yourself out." His solicitor mitigated for him with obvious great difficulty. One of the factors that sentencers have to consider is the protection of the public. After conversations with my new colleague based on comments and sentiments above and agreement with our third member we sentenced him to fifteen weeks custody.
Those who would alter the system to eliminate short sentences altogether should visit their local Magistrates` Court from time to time and acquaint themselves with what real people do and real people suffer and that those of us privileged to sit on the bench whilst not living with the Book of Leviticus under our pillows do our jobs as justly as we can on behalf of a society which doesn`t always know whether it wants hanging or harmony for miscreants.
When sitting with recently appointed Justices who by this stage have had extensive and expensive training there is one factor which no amount of preparation can equip them with and that is a backlog of experience in sentencing. Six months` custody is the courts` maximum. Faced eg with a defendant with no criminal record convicted after trial of punching, kicking and pushing to the floor his pregnant wife where on the ladder of punishment do you place this man? With experience one thinks back to previous similar assaults and compares the situation with aggravating and mitigating features of other assaults. In other words a template in the mind is added to the official guidelines. When that process is explained to a new colleague his or her reluctance to consider the maximum sentence as a possibility is overcome in a logical structured fashion.
On one aspect of sentencing all colleagues are in agreement. We do not take any pleasure in imposing jail sentences. Contrary to the outbursts of some ignorant politicians there are sometimes occasions when there is no other option.
Such was the case earlier this year when Graham was in the dock. He was thirty nine going on sixty. His face was custard coloured, his hair....what he had....hadn`t been combed or washed for months, his sweat shirt was more sweat than shirt and his jeans were about two sizes too big for somebody approaching six foot and only about nine stone. He appeared for sentencing for breaching the punishment for theft of a few items from a supermarket imposed two months previously; a 7.00pm - 7.00am three month curfew. It wasn`t that he`d got home a little late on one occasion or left a little early one morning; he had been away from his address for at least five of the curfew hours on seven times in a month.
He had four pages of "previous". He had had every sentence in the book for drug possession, three courses of drug rehabilitation, umpteen thefts and robberies and had been inside many times. Indeed he had been released from prison for a previous low value theft only two weeks prior to having committed the offence for which he was given a curfew with that bench`s remarks noted on the court file," We are imposing a curfew and not custody. We are giving you a final opportunity to try to sort yourself out." His solicitor mitigated for him with obvious great difficulty. One of the factors that sentencers have to consider is the protection of the public. After conversations with my new colleague based on comments and sentiments above and agreement with our third member we sentenced him to fifteen weeks custody.
Those who would alter the system to eliminate short sentences altogether should visit their local Magistrates` Court from time to time and acquaint themselves with what real people do and real people suffer and that those of us privileged to sit on the bench whilst not living with the Book of Leviticus under our pillows do our jobs as justly as we can on behalf of a society which doesn`t always know whether it wants hanging or harmony for miscreants.
No comments:
Post a Comment