Looters sentenced immediately after the riots in Manchester and Salford were given tougher jail sentences than those who were punished later, the M.E.N. can reveal today.
The louts hauled before the courts days after the mayhem were given terms that were 30 per cent longer. Judges gave sentences averaging 21.7 months during the two weeks after the riots - but this has fallen to just 16.8 months for those put behind bars since for similar offences.
Rioters were also more likely to be spared prison if their cases were not called before the courts in the fortnight following the August 9 disorder.
Manchester riot files: Court data reveals details of first 101 looters to be sentenced
Campaigners said the dramatic drop in sentences was 'worrying' and suggested courts may have been influenced by the intense public and political pressure after the riots.
Prime Minister David Cameron urged the criminal justice system to send a 'tough message' in the days after the riots and signalled his approval for harsh sentences.
In one of the first cases to come before Manchester Crown Court, Judge Andrew Gilbart QC said the offences committed during the riots 'took them completely outside the usual context of criminality'.
He added: “The people of Manchester and Salford are all entitled to look to the law for protection and to the courts to punish those who behaved so outrageously.”
But while sentences started out tough, they have apparently become softer.
The M.E.N. is the only news organisation to have reported on every one of the riot cases as it has come before the courts in the last three months.
Analysis of the data gathered by our reporters has highlighted a clear downward shift in the length of custodial sentences handed out at Manchester Crown Court.
Manchester riot files: Court data reveals details of first 101 looters to be sentenced
In the first two weeks after the riots, a total of 30 people were sentenced at the court.
Just three were spared prison and the remaining 27 were hit by sentences totalling 49 years – an average term of 21.7 months.
Since then, another 33 rioters have been sentenced at the same court.
Six of these were spared prison and the 27 who were sent to custody received sentences totalling 38 years, an average term of 16.8 months.
Around two thirds of those sentenced were convicted of burglary.
Three of those punished at Manchester Crown Court have since had their sentences reduced on appeal.
Sentences can vary considerably depending on a defendant's previous convictions and on mitigating factors but the court data appears to confirm that looters were punished more severely during the fortnight when the issue of the riots dominated the political agenda.
As well as those sentenced at Manchester crown court, there have been a further 38 cases dealt with at magistrates and youth courts, where different sentence guidelines apply.
Roger Smith, director of campaign group Justice, said the trend shown in our data was 'worrying'.
He added: “The country was shocked by these riots and the judges were encouraged to lash out with exemplary sentences.
“There is an argument for making an example but the issue is consistency. The M.E.N. seems to have highlighted inconsistency, and that's worrying.”
Barrister Paul Mendelle QC, a former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “The punishment ought always to fit the crime and there is a danger that in the immediate aftermath of shocking events, the courts themselves get caught up in what they perceive to be the public mood and impose sentences that do not properly reflect the criminality of the defendants.
“Your data appear to suggest that this is what happened in Manchester after the riots.”
Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform said, “The courts were under political pressure to process people involved with the riots promptly and punitively.
“They sat through the night, with bail refused for most defendants, bringing an already creaking prison system put under unprecedented strain. The rush to send people to custody for long periods of time went against all accepted knowledge about effective sentencing."
The M.E.N. showed details of our study of riot sentences to the Ministry of Justice.
A spokesman said: "Magistrates and judges are independent of Government. Their sentencing decisions are based on the individual circumstances of each case and offender. That is why different offenders may be given different sentences for what might appear to be similar crimes.
"To provide a consistent base for these decisions an independent body of experts, the Sentencing Council, set guidelines for them to use. But it is also clear in statute that judges and magistrates can give longer sentences than the set guidelines if they believe it is in the interests of justice. Clearly in these cases judges and magistrates are considering the circumstances of a riot to be an aggravating factor, meriting a longer sentence."
Manchester riot files: Court data reveals details of first 101 looters to be sentenced
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Does anybody really care about the pond life of our great city. In my opinion some of teh sentences were not long enough.
Good.
I would think that is the wrong thing to do, all should get the same sentence after all it was the same crime off looting, our courts and judges are inconsistent and that's what get peoples back up.
Who is worried as long as they are caged like the animals they proved during riots
It is typical of this country because 99% of the riot coverage has focussed on the poor rioters. Whay did they do it? Ooh that is a tough sentence etc.
No focus on people who were burnt out of their homes with ALL their posessions, shops that were burnt down, people who were beaten up etc.
Again it is a fine example of more concern being given to the criminal than the victim.
I read that somebody was jailed for nicking a £2.99 bottle of wine. Now it may seem harsh but it isn't a sneaky thief sticking it under a jumper and discreetly walking out of the shop is it? It is lawlessness and a whole bunch of thugs terrorisinng the public whilst they went on their crime rampage.
Believe me town wasn't a nice place to be living in that night.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
I feel so sorry for the initial rioters sentenced, the law is an ass..............NOT !!
No problem there.
Good. Scumbags.
Well, what a lot of unpleasantness we have hearabouts.
I do wonder however at Dave Allen's point is the most valid- perceived injustice is what makes people alienated and that is what makes it emotionally possible for people to behave badly. Name calling rarely solves things- whether it comes from EDL, SWP, Cabinet Ministers or readers of this august publication. Call people "pond life" and you are soon calling them "Untermenschen" and today, or all days, we should ponder where that gets us.
Now I wonder how we feel about the equality of punishment for those whose behaviour is not so visibly immoral? What should be the response to those who sell counterfeit goods? What should be the punishment for those who encourage them by buying them? What about those who fiddle their taxes- or take steps to avoid paying them at all? And what about those who could tighten up on these parasites but decide to look the other way and cut services because they want their friends to be able to profit from unsustainable growth?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it is moral. That's what gets my back up.
The problem is that most people think they know who the sentencing system works in this country when in fact they don't. Once someone is convicted any previous cautions, reprimands, convictions etc are also taken into account in addition to the current crime they are being sentenced for so take for example the senario below
CRIMINAL A - No previous criminal record and was walking passed a shop that had been looted and sees there is a coat hanging out of the window and takes the coat hours after the looting, he was not part of the hundreds that looted. he just took a coat.
CRIMINAL B - Again no previous convictions but has a responsible job and claims he was swept up in all the looting and actively took part in the rioting and stole a coat and pair of jeans.
CRIMINAL C - has over 40 previous convictions(mainly for theft and burglary) and actively took part in the looting stealing a coat and hat.
CRIMINAL D -Has 15 convictions mainly for being drunk and on the night of the looting is also drunk and is arrested.
All of the above would be given totally different setencing so just because 150 people were convicted of theft or burglary on the night doesn't mean they will all get the same sentences.
Again if any have previous convictions and previously been given community sentences which they failed to do then it is pointless to give them another community sentence or fine them if they have failed to previously pay fines. So again a prison sentence of a few months might be used for what might seem a 'minor' theft because all previous forms of 'rehabilitation' of the convicted person has failed and prison is the only and last way of trying to correct their behavior.
It's like if you have your wallet stole by a pickpocket(theft from person) working on their own they will be given one kind of sentence but if a group surround a person and then steal as that situation is 'aggrevated due to the size and number of people) committing the crime the sentence would generally be much higher.
I beleive that the overall sentences arer much to low as the maximum sentence for burglary is 14 years, yet the highest we have seen is 2 years and 6 months, of which they will only serve at most 15 months. So that is in my view too short a sentence for a burglarf and that is what many of these convictions are for. If the very same people convicted of the burglary of shops also burgled your home would you be so condemning of the 'harsh' sentences? I think not and you would be saying they should be given more that the 2 years etc. But because it has been tagged 'Looting' it has not the same criminal meaning as burglary in many peoples eyes. It's like people I know when they have been arrested for theft from shops etc, they were shocked that thjey were charged with theft under the Theft Act, as in their words it wasn't theft it was shoplifting.
What the looters did was Burglary pure and simple, so as the old crime saying goes, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Lock them all up I say for 14 years.
Robbers, Thieves, Burglars, jailed before Manchester riots given terms 30 per cent shorter than they deserved...... an alternative title
There is every problem with it, true the rioters were wrong but disproportion and knee jerk reactions to satisfy public sentiment is not the way to run an evolved society. Apply the mantra reported on and most of our politicians would be caged for many years, but they wriggled out of their trough snouting my making a few scapegoats and claiming they acted within the rules.
Let's get this right, for the bigger part most if it was petty theft, but it's the low classes so let's apply a sledgehammer. Different tale when it's middle England and above - posh toffs demonstrating because mommy and daddy have to fund their education -public disorder anyone?
The only question worth asking is why the scumbags sentenced later got off lightly. They should all have been birched and their benefits stopped.
The comparison is only valid if the charges are the same. If more people are being now charged with lesser offences such as receiving stolen goods, of course the sentences will be less.
They say there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but there are certainly meaningless statistics, which is what we have here.
Take the Crown court data, all we have is an average sentence given to 27 and 27 people.
Neither sample group is large enough to give meaningful data.
Quoting simply the average is of no value, to try and know anything useful we would need at least see the varience in sentencing, or at least know if any unusally long or short sentences in either group were skewing the data.
We also know nothing of the offences or offenders.
For example we might assume that those sentenced in the first period were either arrested on the night, might this mean they were commiting offences serious enough to merit the police having to intervene there and then waiting 'till later?
Or were arrested soon after, this might mean they were known to police as a result of having more previous arrests so were easier to recognise and find?
So two plausible reasons why those sentenced earlier might recieve longer sentences entirely sensibly, without any need for bais or outside pressure.
The answer is, don't steal in the first instance. You won't get arrested then. Simples.
Alternative headline:
Revealed: Looters punished later given terms 30 per cent shorter than those jailed straight after Manchester riots.
A scandal - why the leniency?
So what?
On wednesday the London police were boasting that they have "baton rounds" or to give them there proper title "rubber bullets" and would use them on the student protests. We should take this opportunity to thank the looters for turning the country (which people today are wearing poppies to remember the ones who died to protect) into the type of police enforced state that they were fighting against.
I see the MENs finest minds are out in force again today.
Any of these people locked up considering an appeal will have a lawyer rubbing their hands together, they'll easily argue that due to discrepancies in sentencing their client should either have a shorter or no sentence, this will cost time and money (remember, we have no money, that's why core services are being cut) and result being they get lighter sentences but it costs us tax payers more.
I read a few weeks ago that one of Baby P's killers was due for release soon. That means he got less than some of the looters sentenced in the early days. Can someone explain that one to me or is our justice system really that out of touch???
who cares, people with darker skin still get higher sentences than those with fairer skin, is it right? no, but it is regular practice? yes!!!
Jack straws son gets caught dealing drugs, and gets no sentence what so ever, black working class kid will be labelled for life in the same scenario!
Oldham rioters get 4-7 years for protecting their area from nazis, white football thugs and drunks tear up a town and get a slap on the wrist!
Injustice is everywhere! just less prevelant for others!
It should have been a minimum of five years for all of them.
wooly liberals can breathe a sigh of relief that things are getting back the way they used to be with soft sentencing and criminals treated better than victims, which is what they want, especially aristocratic liberals like David Cameron