Ministers have been urged to change the law after a top judge said prison sentences for dangerous and violent criminals were too soft.
Judge Ian PEARSON, says he and his colleagues often found their hands tied when it came to handing down hefty jail terms.
Sentences for GBH and dangerous driving, in particular, should be substantially increased, he said.
Judge Pearson, who has sat at Portsmouth Crown Court for four years, said: 'Dangerous driving is a maximum of two years when it should be at least five.
'You can get 10 years for killing by dangerous driving but only two if you maim them for life.
'Grievous bodily harm is a maximum of five years, unless made with intent which can be life. There's an argument for there being a mid-range offence carrying 10 years.
'If someone is glassed in a pub and badly scarred, unless you can prove it was with intent, you can only really give them three years.
'If you can prove it was with intent you can give them life - it's an anomaly.'
Judge Pearson, who has more than 35 years experience in the legal profession, said prison acted as a deterrent and that the courts 'shouldn't shirk away from imposing prison sentences when appropriate'.
'Obviously crown court judges can only sentence in accordance with the law and in accordance with the views of the appeal court, so we would like frequently to impose heavier sentences,' he said.
Judge Pearson also said offenders who breached community penalties, such as those who fail to turn up for unpaid work, had to be punished quickly.
'The public, rightly in my view, have some concern over community penalties,' he said. 'It shouldn't be a soft option. If they step out of line they will come back to court straight away.'
Somebody tell the Home Secretary, - whoever it is this week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
XX 'If someone is glassed in a pub and badly scarred, unless you can prove it was with intent, you can only really give them three years.XX
ReplyDeleteExcuse me??
Did the glass, perhaps ACCIDENTALY enter the hand of the guilty party as he went to wipe a smudge off the face of an innocent barman/customer?
"Oh sorry, I cut you whilst extaticaly shaving with this mug", maybe?
or "SORRY Guv, I was just explaining a principal of physics using this glass as you stepped in the way"?
BOLLOX!
This "Judge" may give all the right soundbites, but he is STILL, like all the others, a prick.
The problem with that particular law is that a 'good' barrister can always persuade a jury that there was no intent, with an excuse like 'the offender instinctively punched out at the victim, but he forgot that he still had a beer glass in his hand'and even more fanciful excuses.
ReplyDeleteIf there no intent, it is GBH which does attract a much lower sentence.
A bit like careless driving resulting in a death, the offender is judged on the crime itself, not the end result.
The system needs an overhaul...