Is the judiciary fit for purpose?

[happydappy2]

Seems almost daily I see news reports of serious sexual offenders walking free from court, with a suspended sentence or community service, even though they have been caught with horrific images of child sexual assault/rape. Why are these men not sent to prison? How are our children safe with these monsters living amongst us? Why is the penalty for possession of such awful child sexual abuse not taken more seriously? Where is the deterrent?

Nobody is jailed for not paying their TV licence. It is not an imprisonable offence

You can be prosecuted for not paying TV licence, and if you're unable to pay the fine you end up in prison. So on paper you're jailed for "non payment of court fine" rather than TV licence itself.

This affects approx 30,000 people each year, the vast majority are women, single mothers, and disadvantaged minorities.

But you know that right?

This is not accurate. Which prisons are being closed?
New prisons are being built as we speak and this building work has been ongoing for a couple of years as part of the last governments commitment to grow the prison estate.
The policy to release prisoners after 40% of their sentence rather than the usual 50% has several exemptions ( violent crime and crime against children for example)
I agree with OP by the way but let’s stick to facts not hyperbole.

Holloway women's prison was closed not that long ago

I think we need Julie Bindel on this thread.

Holloway closed 8 years ago.

They do get imprisoned for not paying the fine though. I don’t think it’s used as much these days. There were on average 70 people jailed a year for non payment of fines of tv licences between 1995 and 2018.

I get that people shouldn’t be using services for free but when I contemplate how much money is involved. The initial enforcement officers, the cps time, the court costs, chasing up the fine, possible police costs, reappearing in court possibly several times as I’m sure prison is the last remedy in this scenario. Then the cost of keeping someone in prison. It seems like an extraordinary use of resources when there are so many other issues going on.

I think they should just be standard debts tbh. The bbc can choose to pursue or not like a normal company.

Wrong it is and it's predominantly women who are.
It's a criminal offence to not pay your tv licence fee and usually ends up with a fine of up to £1000 (I believe) if you don't pay your fine you get sent to jail, and as most people who don't pay the licence fee do so because they can't afford it they often can't afford the fine which results in a jail term

Can you evidence this claim, who DID influence the guidelines, who WAS in the room and who did make the final decisions?

I get that people shouldn’t be using services for free but when I contemplate how much money is involved. The initial enforcement officers, the cps time, the court costs, chasing up the fine, possible police costs, reappearing in court possibly several times as I’m sure prison is the last remedy in this scenario.

The last remedy in this scenario is to abolish the BBC TV licence fee.
All you're paying for is your own institutionalised propaganda. (BBC "non-bias" went out the window years ago).

I feel like this is a bit of a derail now though, sorry.

I think you can easily look up who was on the Sentencing Council at the time, who wrote and approved them. All of that is publicly available. As is the structure of the Council, how it works with the judiciary and the CPS. None of this is secret.

But Keir Starmer’s involvement? When asked, no one could provide anything beyond “widely reported”. No source.

But I can tell who finalised these guidelines. They are always seem and approved by the Lord Chief Justuce, the Head of the Senrencing Council, and finally the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice. In 2014, that was not Keir Starmer.

Until I pointed out some actual dates and facts, the inference was clear. You may not like the man, or indeed the guideline (I don’t). But let’s be accurate as to the responsibility here.

Yes here;

Sir Keir attended 21 of 23 meetings at which the Sentencing Council formulated new guidelines related to 50 different sex offences.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11958253/Keir-Starmer-present-meetings-decided-not-sex-offenders-prison.html

Do you think sentencing guidance is decided in a few days and implications immediately?

The discussions would have occured when starmer was clearly on the sentencing council.

You could argue that he was neither use nor ornament, and didnt have any input into the meetings he attended, but to deny his presence is baffling.

Here you are:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11958253/Keir-Starmer-present-meetings-decided-not-sex-offenders-prison.html

Presumably as a lawyer he'd be quick to complain / sue etc if this was untrue as you have repeatedly alleged?

Well we have a source at least. And no, sentencing guidelines take years to write.

Ther article makes it clear that there were 12 other people who post a review decided to grade certain offences for a community order.

However, my point is that the finalisation of sexual offending guidelines were approved by the Conservative Secretary of State of the day, a matter carefully not alluded to in this article.

Is Starmer’s political attack hypocritical? Yes. But to suggest he was unique or more influential than anyone else in the Sentencing Council is wrong. In fact, like everyone else, it seems he raised no objection at all, as the article points out, much like the Conservative who then approved them for use. This is institutional misogyny at its finest.

My earlier point was also about the institutional misogyny in the criminal justice system which is extensive. That hasn’t been something that appeared overnight on Keir Starmer being PM.

Absolutely - the whole shower of them are complicit. But as DPP at the time (Starmer was wasn't he?) it seems incredible that he sanctioned the removal of prison for those involved with producing and sharing images of child sex abuse. Unless of course he reckons that these are not particularly serious sex offences against children? Otherwise why wouldn't he be recorded as having protested and arguing against this?

Absolutely - the whole shower of them are complicit.

When looking at the people who made and make up the sentencing council (like many statements on this thread, easily Googleable), its eye opening how many people with lots of experience came to this decision.

I don’t disagree with that - but this article makes clear that he was not all that special either, because I am
sure that the Mail would have had a much better story if it could have said, Keir Starmer made an active case for change. It seems that the minutes were made available, which makes his passivity clear.

The guideline then came into effect after being publicly consulted on. These ideas were not without scrutiny. There were many points where there could have been objections made, or senior people could have overruled the content.

Btw my view is that I don’t agree with them. Sexual offences are one of those cases for custody and minimum sentences. But after a decade working in criminal justice my view was a minority one.

First he wasn't there and then he wasn't special?

You have no idea what went on in the meetings that he clearly attended.

bombastix
However, my point is that the finalisation of sexual offending guidelines were approved by the Conservative Secretary of State of the day, a matter carefully not alluded to in this article

The Sentencing Council is an independent body - surely, the final decisions would be made by the Council?

Clav, you are right, but every draft guideline goes to the Secretary of State too. The Council is independent, but the SoS will still see all the guidelines before they are published. The Council is a NDPB of the MOJ.

See how it works;

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/how-the-council-works/

And then finally, it is a matter of law, ie written public policy that the judiciary shall follow guidelines, and if they do not, they shall give reasons. That is set out in the Sentencing Act 2020.

In other words, this is matter of law, which the Government of the day would have been well aware of and approved. I do think Starmer is hypocritical in his attack. But equally, there were many others who were actively in government who were well aware, and could have objected. They did not. It is silly to suggest he had some unique part in it beyond what is publicly available. And a Conservative government of the day did not object. Nor did it decide to object in 2022 when the Council made revisions.

What do they do with them in other countries

In general I don't think the judiciary is fit for purpose. We should have dedicated courts that deal with sexual assault and rape with a trauma informed approach. The backlog is inexcusable.

We should clearly have single sex prisons.

There needs to be a better way of dealing with child sex offences, that serves as a deterrent to others. At the moment the message seems to be, carry on, slap on the wrist for being caught but no real punishment.

It does seem like a system created by men, for men. Things need to change.