Why super fast trials for some but not for others?

[NoProblems]

There have been super fast trials and sentencing for the recent anti-immigrant rioters, rightly so.

Why can't there be equally super fast trials for Huw Edwards and those like him?

Why not for those who attacked police officers at Manchester airport?

Why not for the police officer who was caught kicking a man lying on the ground?

The facts have or should have already been gathered, so what are they waiting for?

I don't want to get into long discussions or arguments, but I think once a person has been arrested, they should be charged and tried fairly quickly, and there should be no queue jumping in trials.

Huw Edwards should have been tried and charged/acquitted a long time ago.

AIBU?

The Manchester airport incident is under investigation. The perpetrators are on pre charge bail.

Huw Edwards is on bail.

Other cases, not just the rioters have got through the magistrates courts in a short time.

Did they not wait for any reports for the anti-immigrant rioters? Why did it not take months?

Not read about any for the ones who've been sentenced so far, no. But again, by definition we're not going to have seen any other than the most straightforward cases so far. You can't draw the conclusions you're trying to here without knowing exactly how many rioters are still waiting for either sentence or trial, what evidence they might need to present and how long it's going to take to get it.

So much whataboutary OP!!

Posters have explained to you in detail..... your questions are painful! It's been spelt out to you....

The persons who attacked policemen at Manchester Airport and the policeman who hit the person lying on the ground should have been tried and sentenced first.

That event happened before the anti-immigrant riots. Everything was captured on camera, just like the anti-immigrant trials.

But those crimes have been pushed back from facing justice.

Just to be clear, do you think every single crime ought to be dealt with by the courts in chronological order, or only these ones? If the former, that's going to make the existing backlogs look like chicken feed.

I noticed that Huw Edwards wife filed for divorce. Protecting the money?

Not trials, sentencing after guilty plea. And only where no Pre-sentence report is required, so where there is only one possible outcome according to the sentencing guidelines. Most of the cases that have been reported relate to Defendants with multiple previous convictions and prison sentences, so a further custodial sentence is inevitable.

Public order offences tend to have CCTV so are easier to prosecute because there is clear evidence.

For Crown Court trials in complex cases - especially where there are multiple defendants- dates for trial are being booked in 2026.

There is however undoubtedly an element of public deterrence in dealing with these cases so quickly - and quite rightly. Televising sentencing remarks will have helped deter further disorder.

No idea, but I must say I'd be divorcing a DH who'd done that even if we had no assets at all.

Thank you for the further responses.

"The Huw Edwards case and the reports necessary before sentencing can take place is a bit more complicated than the rioters who've been sentenced."

Why? The charges are known and he has pleaded guilty.

"Huw Edwards is on bail."

"I noticed that Huw Edwards wife filed for divorce. Protecting the money?"

"No idea, but I must say I'd be divorcing a DH who'd done that even if we had no assets at all."

So basically a free man doing what he wants or needs to do. And he would have lots of assets after all those years at the BBC.

"your questions are painful! It's been spelt out to you...."

It hasn't really because people don't like to answer painful questions directly.

"You can't draw the conclusions you're trying to here without knowing exactly how many rioters are still waiting for either sentence or trial, what evidence they might need to present and how long it's going to take to get it."

Even if twenty have been put in jail super fast, it is twenty times the one person who has pleaded guilty but has been a free person for months.

"Just to be clear, do you think every single crime ought to be dealt with by the courts in chronological order, or only these ones?"

At the moment I am talking about the ones I have mentioned because they have highlighted the glaring differences in how justice is delivered.

Saville never got sentenced despite the BBC, and most probably many others in high positions, knowing about his crimes for decades.

Huw Edwards has pleaded guilty but has been free for months while he should have been put in jail as super fast as the anti-immigrant rioters.

Those who attacked the police at Manchester Airport and the policeman who hit the man lying on the ground were caught on camera in the same way as the anti-immigrant rioters but are still free. The suspended policeman is probably on full pay while the attackers are free to carry on whatever work they are involved in.

If the justice system is largely about deterrence of future crime as one person commented, it doesn't seem to be at all in a hurry to deter crimes like those of Huw Edwards and the attackers at Manchester Airport.

I do not in any way support the anti-immigrant rioters but am amazed at how efficiently the justice system can work when it wants to, when it is punishing criminals who cannot afford bail and cannot afford expensive lawyers.

No reports are awaited, no backlogs come in the way.

It worked so smoothly. They were rapidly identified and caught, made no excuses and pleaded guilty and were taken straight to jail.

I think that is how justice should work for all criminals.

Apparently the prisons are over crowded, meaning that some other criminals must have been freed super fast to accommodate the jailed anti-immigrant rioters.

@NoProblems this is detailed but answers your questions

also don’t forget there’s crown courts and magistrates courts

thesecretbarrister.com/2024/08/14/two-tier-justice-cutting-through-the-online-myths/amp/

Even if twenty have been put in jail super fast, it is twenty times the one person who has pleaded guilty but has been a free person for months.

Which doesn't remotely address the point you were quoting. You don't have anywhere near the information needed to draw the conclusion that you were. It's not at all amazing that straightforward cases come to court quicker than complex ones.

At the moment I am talking about the ones I have mentioned because they have highlighted the glaring differences in how justice is delivered.

Ok. Again then, do you think all crimes should be dealt with in chronological order or just these ones? What do you want to happen whilst more complex cases wait for the evidence needed to either try or sentence them , should those that can be dealt with quickly have to wait until the expert evidence is ready merely as a point of principle? Because you thinking everything should be dealt with swiftly does not magic up the capacity to provide reports and supporting evidence on your preferred timetable.

I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing that our court and prison systems are working well at the moment. They obviously aren't. But the points you're making aren't sensible.

I think it's political to quash riots, which affect many bystanders homes and businesses.

As others have said, this was about immediate and urgent deterrence. It’s always the same with riots - if you get people banged up within 48 hours you are going to make their mates think twice about repeating tomorrow - and it worked.

The deterrence effect of sentencing someone like Huw Edwards immediately would be minimal - because these type of offenders generally think they won’t be caught and are therefore are not deterred by others’ sentencing and there simply isn’t the requirement for immediacy.

In order to put an end to the riots it was thought necessary to send a strong signal that there would be swift and severe consequences for rioting.

British justice not interested in sending a strong signal to those accessing indecent photographs of children as young as seven.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5166915-5166915-huw-edwards-given-suspended-sentence

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5166805-to-be-absolutely-sick-of-excuses-being-made-for-mens-disgusting-sexual-behaviour-trigfer-warning-hugh-edwards-sentencing

Well Edwards never went on trial - he pled guilty.

Complexity of evidence, in some cases - sometimes it just takes longer to go through all relevant stuff and get the case together.

Availability of court dates and staff and all that. When there's a spike in crime, there isn't a matching spike in the number of people who are lawyers and can take their cases, or in police officers who can go through evidence. Think of it like a pandemic - when covid came along, there weren't suddenly more doctors or hospital beds.

In between being found guilty (or pleading guilty) there are reports - often relating to things like people's mental health issues and any mitigating factors in their case and so on. It can take a while. This is perfectly normal. And Huw Edwards hasn't been treated (or sentenced) differently to the average person in a case like his when it's a first offence. You may not agree that a six-month suspended sentence for what he did SHOULD be pretty standard, but that's a different issue. There's no reason at all to believe your statement that he's "played the system" or benefitted from "friends in high places" and so on.

You do seem pretty confused about all this stuff, to be honest. You're using terms like "charged", "tried" and "sentenced" interchangeably, as if you don't know what they mean. No, Savile was never sentenced - he was never convicted. Because he was never tried. Because he was never charged. I don't think he was ever questioned.

If you don't know this stuff, YANBU to ask. But what's the point if people take the trouble to explain it to you, and you just refuse to even try to take it in?

@Elsvieta

I don't think he was ever questioned

He was, on multiple occasions, and there were charges in the pipeline. He died before he could be formally charged.

"In between being found guilty (or pleading guilty) there are reports - often relating to things like people's mental health issues and any mitigating factors in their case and so on. It can take a while. This is perfectly normal."

I do not have a problem with that.

My point is none of these were taken into account when almost instantly sentencing the anti-immigrant rioters.

Poor Huw Edwards had a traumatic childhood, and that was probably taken into account in his sentencing.

Did British justice look into the traumatic childhoods of the anti-immigrant rioters?

Did British justice look into the mental issues of the anti-immigrant rioters?

The anti-immigrant rioters would almost certainly have had traumatic childhoods and mental issues.

Children 11-12 years old don't engage in rioting unless they are going through traumatic childhoods.

As comments on the following thread suggest, many people are absolutely sick of the double standards of British justice.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5166805-to-be-absolutely-sick-of-excuses-being-made-for-mens-disgusting-sexual-behaviour-trigfer-warning-hugh-edwards-sentencing

Reports are only useful to the courts if they can in law, following the sentencing guidelines, affect the outcome of sentencing.

For some offences, personal mitigation will make the difference between a community sentence and custody. For others, custody is inevitable under the sentencing guidelines. Personal mitigation including trauma of any kind is taken into account at Step 2 of sentencing (when deciding where in the category range to impose the sentence) but there will be situations when that mitigation will not affect whether custody is the only possible outcome. The most obvious example is murder. Once convicted of murder, the only sentence possible is life imprisonment. Personal mitigation is irrelevant. Other offences have categories where the only outcome is custody.

First time offenders will almost certainly get a PSR where custody is a possibility. That is the case for Huw Edwards.

Moreover, it is simply wrong to suggest that in prosecuting under 18s, no account is taken of their age and backgrounds.

11 and 12 year olds are prosecuted and sentenced under completely different standards to adults. In fact, the decision to prosecute (Code for Crown Prosecutors paragraph 14.4 (d) ) takes a child's age and maturity into account when deciding whether to prosecute at all.

Where a prosecution is deemed in the public interests, the sentencing guidelines for children and young people explicitly cite factors such as neglect, abuse, or parental addiction as strong personal mitigation. Custody is not even available to under 15s except in very limited circumstances for the most serious offences.

The sentencing guidelines for serious public order offences bear no similarities to the guidelines for possession of images of the sexual abuse of children. There may be a strong moral and legal argument for reviewing the latter and making the sentences longer across the board. But to compare the sentences of the rioters and recent high profile sex offenders is not a simple exercise.