- Home
- BREAKING NEWS: Alistair Darling, Chancellor: “People are pissed off” - “worst economic downturn in 60 years” - “We really have to make our minds up; are we ready to try and persuade this country to support us for another term? Because the next 12 months are critical. It’s still there to play for.”
- The economic backdrop presents Labour with its toughest challenge since the 1980s. “We’ve got our work cut out. This coming 12 months will be the most difficult 12 months the Labour party has had in a generation, quite frankly,” he says. But Labour has been lacklustre. “We’ve got to rediscover that zeal which won three elections, and that is a huge problem for us at the moment. People are pissed off with us.” Is this Refreshing Honesty/Positioning/Undermining Brown/Supporting Brown? What do you think?
- Meanwhile David Miliband is given more time to justify withholding documents in Guantanamo case
Comment at end
30th August, 2008
More than 70 criminals given ‘unduly lenient’ sentences last year
Yes, I realise the prisons are full. And I know that judges have been asked to consider sentencing carefully – though I thought that referred to council tax defaulters and petty theft – but surely this is worrying?
Since it seems that 62 judges let off criminals with undue lenient sentences, this is not confined to a few liberal leftie oddballs. It seems fairly widespread.
Nor is it only concerning one or two types of criminality.
WHAT ABOUT THE PRIME MINISTERIAL WOULD-BE ASSASSINS?
Since we will soon be hearing the cases regarding the internet jihadists’ plot against Brown & Blair, and assuming one or more of them is found guilty, I wonder what will be their punishments, if found guilty? Perhaps now they won’t get a slap on the wrist, an evening class on democracy in Britain, and a fortnight’s community service – such as road-sweeping Downing Street.
One of them, Ishaq Kanmi, is charged with four counts of terrorism:
- supporting, belonging to, or claiming to belong to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network;
- inviting support for a proscribed organisation;
- disseminating terrorist publications;
- soliciting murder.
Sentences increased by Appeal Court. Younes Tsouli, Waseem Mughal, Tariq al Daour - they admitted encouraging people to follow Osama Bin Laden
If found guilty perhaps now Mr Kanmi can expect to get a tougher sentence than Younes Tsouli, another web jihadist, whose term was increased from 10 to 16 years.
The solicitor general said on Tsouli and his two accomplices: “I referred the sentences given to these three offenders to the Court of Appeal because I considered that the sentences did not properly reflect the seriousness of the offences, the need to punish the offenders and the need to deter others from such serious conduct.”
Al-Daour was also sentenced to a further two years to run consecutively on a separate fraud offence.
The three men are the first people to be convicted of inciting terrorist murder via the internet.
Based on the above, Ishaq Kanmi, if the evidence stands up in court (and that’s another issue), can expect an even longer sentence, given that he is not admitting the charges.
Bloomberg report
Excerpt:
Abbas Iqbal, 23, and his brother Ilyas Iqbal, 21, also of Blackburn, were charged with possessing items suspected to be connected with the instigation of terrorism.
Chief Magistrate Timothy Workman sent Kanmi’s and Abbas’ case to the Central Criminal Court in London, with the next hearing set for Oct. 1. Ilyas pleaded not guilty and will appear again at the magistrates court on Sept. 19. They were all remanded in custody and denied bail.
SORT IT OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
In the light of the October 1st trial of the man accused of plotting to kill Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, can I respectfully suggest that we get this sorted out ASAP?
Even those of us who don’t care how or when these two politicians meet their maker, we should understand that there is a message sent with every sentence. And if the message coming out of our judicial system is one of weakness, this kind of criminality will still be considered worth pursuing by many.
Brown and Blair are well protected. What about the rest of us?
More than 70 criminals had their jail terms increased last year after the Court of Appeal ruled they were given “unduly lenient” sentences by judges, according to new figures
They include one of the murderers of lawyer Tom ap Rhys Price and web jihadi Younes Tsouli, jailed for inciting terrorism.
Baroness Scotland QC, the Attorney General, referred 106 criminals to more senior judges in 2007 to seek tougher sentences.
The Court of Appeal ruled that 86 criminals were let off too lightly by 62 judges across England and Wales. Of those 86, 75 were handed harsher terms.
Sentences were increased in 12 sex cases, 15 violence cases, 17 robbery cases, 11 drugs cases and one murder.
The murder was that of Cambridge graduate Mr ap Rhys Price, 31. In January 2006 he was robbed and stabbed in the chest, face and thigh as he walked from Kensal Green underground station to the home he shared with his fiancée. Robbers Delano Brown and cousin Donnel Carty abandoned him.
Both were jailed for life but Brown, who was 17, received a minimum of 17 years while Carty, who was a year older, received a 21 year minimum.
Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, ruled last year that even though Brown was younger he was ‘equally culpable’. He increased Brown’s minimum term to 20 years.
In January the Court of Appeal raised Younes Tsouli’s sentence for inciting terrorism from 10 to 16 years.
Moroccan-born Tsouli, who lived in west London, hosted a jihadi chat site called YOUBOMBIT and another that regularly featured beheadings. Two other men in the same case also had their sentences increased.
Another shocking case was that of pensioner Melvyn Baldwin, 67. He was attacked in his home in Shipley, West Yorkshire, by robbers Paul Crummack, Michael Stell and Ali Campbell.
Crummack, 22, threatened Mr Baldwin with a bar and punched him in the head after Stell, 23, urged him to “do him”. The pensioner died of a brain haemorrhage eight days later.
They were originally sentenced to three-and-a-half years for robbery. Crummack was given a concurrent sentence for manslaughter.
In June 2007 the Court of Appeal increased their sentences to five years.
The Court of Appeal describes a sentence as “unduly lenient” when it “falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.”
The tables are published annually, said a spokesman for the Attorney General’s office.
She said: “Referring a sentence as unduly lenient should not be interpreted as a public criticism of the judge in the case.”
Sir Igor Judge, president of the Queen’s Bench Division, said the statistics show the “system is working as intended”.
He said: “This information shows that from time to time sentencing decisions are made which the Court of Appeal considers are wrong. Accordingly they are corrected.”
Sir Igor said judges must balance “different, complex factors” alongside the law when arriving at their decisions.
He added: “Not every successful appeal to the Court of Appeal involves criticism of the trial judge.”
The statement, released on his behalf by the Judicial Communications Office, was very similar to one published last year.
A spokesman said: “The points still stand.”
The power to challenge a judge’s sentence was introduced in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act.
Prosecutors, victims, MPs, pressure groups or members of the public can ask the Attorney General to refer a case within 28 days of sentence.
More than 60 judges have given “unduly lenient” sentences to offenders convicted of some of the most serious crimes, according to newly published figures. Article follows:
The Court of Appeal ruled 62 judges across England and Wales let off criminals, including terrorists, murderers and rapists, with light sentences.
The Attorney General Baroness Scotland QC referred 106 criminals to more senior judges last year to seek tougher sentences.
Among them were high-profile cases involving robbery gangs, drug smugglers, paedophiles and terrorists linked to al Qaida.
Of these 86 individuals were ruled to have been given “unduly lenient” punishments, with 75 handed harsher terms.
Sentences were increased in 12 sex cases, 15 violence cases, 17 robbery cases, 11 drugs cases and one murder.
The number of Court of Appeal referrals fell by 38 and the number declared unduly lenient fell by 27 when compared with 2006.
The cases form a tiny proportion of some 120,000 offenders dealt with in Crown Courts last year.
Among the cases highlighted by the Attorney General’s office were:
- Internet terrorist Younes Tsouli, of west London, whose 10 year jail term for inciting murder overseas was increased to 16 years. Two other men also had their sentences increased.
- Three men who robbed pensioner Melvyn Baldwin in Shipley, West Yorkshire, had their jail terms increased to five years. The 67-year-old died after being punched in the head.
- Essex businessman Rohail Spall, who spiked a woman’s drink at a restaurant and planned to sexually attack her, had his sentence increased by 18 months to three-and-a-half years.
The power to challenge a judge’s sentence was introduced in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act.
Prosecutors, victims, MPs, pressure groups or members of the public can ask the Attorney General to refer a case within 28 days of sentence.
The Court of Appeal said a sentence is “unduly lenient” when it “falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.”
A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office said: “The tables are published annually and give factual information on the sentences the law officers referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient.
“The information is already in the public domain as all Court of Appeal hearings are open to the public.
“Referring a sentence as unduly lenient should not be interpreted as a public criticism of the judge in the case.”
Sir Igor Judge, president of the Queen’s Bench Division, said the statistics show the “system is working as intended”.
He said: “This information shows that from time to time sentencing decisions are made which the Court of Appeal considers are wrong. Accordingly they are corrected.”
Sir Igor said judges must balance “different, complex factors” alongside the law when arriving at their decisions.
He added: “Not every successful appeal to the Court of Appeal involves criticism of the trial judge.”
The statement, released on his behalf by the Judicial Communications Office, was virtually identical to one published last year.
A spokesman said: “The points still stand.”
Tags: 1. Tony Blair, 70 criminal sentences increased, alistair darling chancellor, Brown (Gordon Brown & his Labour Government, from June 2007), brown and blair murder plot, challenge for labour, challenge to brown, court of appeal, criminals had sentences increased by appeal court, David Miliband, Foreign Secretary in Gordon Brown's government, from June 2007, internet jihadists, judges accused of leniency, kill prime minister, over 60 judges accused, people pissed off
