I knew somehow somewhere down the line the Police would get the blame.
Just remember one thing; the judiciary can only avoid the blame for a short period of time.
The public is now becoming more aware of the unaccountability of our justice system and the danger they put the public into day after day.
PC Midlands, I don't think he's blaming the police. He sounds as if he's identifying a societal problem for which we must all take some responsibility.
If I'd blame one group in society more than any other it's the parents who bring their kids up not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
PC Midlands, please explain where Head of Legal blames the Police?
Your comments on this blog have gone from being an insiders explaination of the Police zeitgeist to an absolute defence of anything they do coupled with an all out attack on everyone but the Police.
The Police are not to blame for Gary Newlove's death. By the same token, they are not always blameless nor are they certainly always right.
At some point, you have to conceed that you believe in a person's guilt as much as they protest their innocence. That results in you being partial to one side of the story and anti the other.
If the Judge/lay Magistrate don't do what you want them to do, that isn't because they are wrong and you are right - it may well be because in all the circumstances their decision is correct.
As for unaccountability, the criminal justice system is under far greater scrutiny than the Police. Perhaps we should start publishing statistics of :
- endless bail to return dates
- ineffective trials because Officers are on a rest day and think that that equals not having to come to court, after all the defendant is guilty and ought to plead
- trials that collapse or defendants acquitted because despite the defendant denying presence, the Police choosing not to hold an ID parade where there is no other supporting ID evidence
- Obvious breaches of PACE resulting in evidence being ruled inadmissible
- Bad character applications failing because nobody can be bothered to find out the circumstances of the offence beyond what appears on the face of the PNC
We must all take responsibility for failings in the criminal justice system and yes, that includes the Police. Let he who is without sin etc...
Gary Newlove was killed by three feral youths. One was on bail, the other two weren't. Bail is not the common factor here, it is the lack of moral compass, parental guidance and personal ability to do evil that killed him.
"Bail is not the common factor here..."
Hmm, it's starting to become one in a lot of cases, though:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...rts/
7219773.stm
PCM, the lack of regard for bail conditions could just as easily be an attack on the judiciary for justifying the granting of bail by imposing restrictions. Conditions that they know will not be adhered to, with any breach being punished with the same ineffective conditions. In fact the point of the article is that two of the murderers where not on bail at the time, and therefore the police and the judiciary are not responsible for the death of Mr Newlove, those that are responsible are now serving time.
Joseph K.
PCM the youth in question was, by their own admission, well known to them. Did they not think then that he would breach bail and nick him right away? That's what used to happen but perhaps police are too busy now for this.
Britons, start building prisons. By my latest count, you need about ten times as many as you have to come up to U.S. levels of imprisonment.
As a possibly cheaper alternative, buy up some derelict ships from wherever and moor them offshore. I understand that worked rather well for you about two centuries back.
It's nice to be noticed and even lovelier to be defended, but I was blaming the police a bit, actually: this gang was a well-known problem in the area as far as I can make out, and residents (such as the one who installed the CC TV we saw images of on telly) seem to have been very dissatisfied about what the police did, or failed to do, about them.
If this murder was contributed to by failings on the part of public authorities, then it's the police who we should be examining. The idea that the court is to blame is a total diversion - and as I said in my post, a diversion that suits the police fine.
I'll be posting about the Weddell case tomorrow, by the way.
Can someone explain how Magistrates can overrule a decision made by a Crown Court judge?
I get the distinct impression that a lot of "buck passing" is going on here.
From what has been reported
a) Sweetings had apparently offended more than once before
b) had a record of disobeying court imposed conditions.
In earlier Bystander articles, I seem to remember a bail decision should be made taking the prosecutions case "at its highest", and it seems to me that the high water mark suggests bail should be denied. I was surprised the Magistrates indicated a non-custodial sentence was to be given to a repeat offender and felt that a jail sentence, even if a short one, would have given him a message.
In fairness to the police, I have made a 999 call as a result of an assault, and the police were there within 2 minutes. Whilst they didn't manage to catch/ charge the perpetrator, I don't think their response can be faulted.
I don't see it as buck passing at all - I'm neither a magistrate nor a police officer. I can entirely understand an argument that the police are under-resourced, very busy and so forth, and so are unable to tackle gangs like this effectively.
But to argue that the magistrates are to blame for Garry Newlove's death - I think that's absurd. For one thing, everyone keeps forgetting the two other killers not on bail.
Anonimouse, you suggest a custodial sentence might have given Swellings a message. But what if he'd killed Garry Newlove shortly after being released from that? Would that show that the sentence was too short?
Anonimouse,
>>In earlier Bystander articles, I seem to remember a bail decision should be made taking the prosecutions case "at its highest", and it seems to me that
the high water mark suggests bail should be denied.
@Head: No, I accept no system is perfect. For example, I accept that ex-PC Weddel had a clean record and lengthy public service and that there was a reasonable presumption in favour of bail in that case, despite the severity of the charges. As far as I can tell, that was a case where it could not have been foreseen that Weddell would perform the actions he did whilst on bail.
In other words, I accept that s**t happens. I also accept that petty criminals often move on to more serious offences.
However, with regard to Sweeting, I just suspect that this was the time when a warning shot should have been fired by The System, and it was up to Sweetings whether he pulled up or not.
Wig and Gown
"please explain where Head of Legal blames the Police?"
Erm.. see above.
"Police zeitgeist to an absolute defence of anything they do coupled with an all out attack on everyone but the Police." (head of legal did not say that. Have another look) - ed
The Police have many failings, many of which are well documented on police blogs. Not for a minute am I saying that we are perfect.
The police is an inefficient mass of bureaucracy crippled by numerous auditors, bogged down by government targets and ruled by political masters.
“As for unaccountability, the criminal justice system is under far greater scrutiny than the Police.”
Please explain how it is? The author of theist blog has struggled in the past to get transcripts of court cases and he is “on the inside”.
I firmly believe that decisions should be published on all cases. They are public courts after all.
“Perhaps we should start publishing statistics”
Most of these ARE actually made by various departments in the force. All you would have to do is request reports from the police authority or the force using FOA.
“Gary Newlove was killed by three feral youths. One was on bail, the other two weren't. Bail is not the common factor here, it is the lack of moral compass, parental guidance and personal ability to do evil that killed him.”
You are quite right with this comment. Bail is not the issue here, it is one of many. I would like to see this chaps past history. He symbolises everything wrong with the state of the criminal justice system. I bet everything that he has at least 10 or more convictions, never having seen the inside of a jail. He would have had thousands of tax payers money spent on courses and other schemes designed not to stop reoffending but to keep people out of jail.
The judiciary fail to see beyond a solicitor’s mitigation in court. The impact on the community, the message sent to the associates of the criminal is all lost.
I have said many times before, soft sentecting does anything but help the criminal. It simply creates a mindset within a youth that there actions will draw little if any consequences. And for that the judiciary IS responsible.
Edited By Siteowner
"The judiciary fail to see beyond a solicitor’s mitigation in court. The impact on the community, the message sent to the associates of the criminal is all lost"
Is that the role of the Judiciary?
And if the Government insists upon shorter incarcerations is the Judiciary not to comply?
"Is that the role of the Judiciary?"
Yes. Protection of the public should be at the heart of sentencing.
Okay, as people are already getting defensive, I'll chuck my Mills Bomb in and duck:
Sweetings is, for want of a better term, a scumbag. Fault in this? Possibly his parents (as per John-W), some contribution from the education system, maybe he is just evil.
Sweetings was released on bail. I'll assume that the magistrates correctly interpreted the sentencing guidelines to indicate that if he was convicted as charged, the sentence would be non-custodial. Fault in this? If any, in the sentencing guidelines. I assume, probably foolishly, that we can agree that it is inappropriate for somebody who would not be jailed if found guilty (without taking mitigation in to account) to spent time in prison on remand? Time in police cells while initial evidence is gathered is different. Whether or not we think that particular crime, or his accumulation of offences, should result in prison is irrelevant - what matters is the law as it currently stands. And that is a matter for politicians. And, we don't have enough evidence to know that if he had not been there - whether tucked up in bed in Crewe or locked up on remand, that the other two would not have committed the same or a similar offence.
There appears to have been a widespread thug / gang culture in the area. A failing of policing, yes. A failing of the police? Again, I would disagree. The police were set up with the primary task of crime prevention. This is no longer, in practice if not also in principle, the case and the requirement to fulfil endless government targets and complete the corresponding paperwork takes officers away from 'merely' being visible on the street.
Sweetings broke his bail conditions - something he had form for. But, as he wasn't going to prison, what stricter bail conditions could be imposed? Tagging? And would the police have been available to arrest him if the tag activated?
It is clear that Mr Newlove's death was an avoidable tragedy. It is less clear how it could have been lawfully avoided. I expect that there are many occasions where magistrates, policemen and others wish they could or think it would be more fair or just if they did break the law - and the good ones (most of them) carry on and apply the law as it is written, as the public require of them.
If the law is not fit for purpose (and I am not arguing that it is) then we need to change the law - through parliament, through regulation (such as the sentencing guidelines) or, where it is appropriate, through the legal appeals process.
We do not want anybody in law enforcement: police, prosecutors or judiciary applying their own law rather than the law of the land, regardless of how sensible or fair or 'right' that may seem. Especially to a tabloid headline writer with 20/20 hindsight.
PC Midlands said "The police is an inefficient mass of bureaucracy crippled by numerous auditors, bogged down by government targets and ruled by political masters."
The lay bench is no different in many respects.
I disagree that public protection should be at the heart of sentencing, it should be one of a number of factors.
If public protection was at the heart, then anyone found guilty of a crime would have to be jailed indefinately, for the argument would run that once someone had committed a crime, they might do so again and therefore must be locked up.
As for 'soft sentencing', is that just another way of saying that you dislike the fact that the Judiciary follow the law and sentencing guidelines rather than your battle-hardened and perhaps too harsh view?
You also say "The judiciary fail to see beyond a solicitor’s mitigation in court. The impact on the community, the message sent to the associates of the criminal is all lost".
That's right, the Judiciary are stupid, gullible and easily persuadable. Lawyers are clever, devious and highly manipulative.
Except of course when they prosecute – then they are protected from themselves by the ‘Prosecution Halo’
Except that professional Judges used to be one of the aforesaid Lawyers
Except that lay Magistrates’ are by and large well educated and capable of making rational judgments.
As for scrutiny, I stand by my comment. Transcripts of proceedings in open court are available to anyone willing to stump up the eyewatering cost of their production.
What is free, is the ability to attend court - something that many of the 'Monday morning Quaterbacks' on this board ought to try once in a while.
"Monday morning quarterbacks": I like that. When it comes to court rulings I reckon there are a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks.
Is there a legal-limey way of putting it? Lords justices of armchair appeal?
At the end of the day the Government/Parliament has decided what course courts take and restrict their powers accordingly. Jack Straw has announced effectively that there will be NO custody for less than 1 year. This means Magistrates will have no powers of imprisonment. He wants "serious" community sentences which are a deterrent and rehabilitate offenders. I suggest he reads the Audit Office report published the other day which states that anecdotally it rehabilitates more but there is not the evidence to clearly support this.
I support CP but we must always have the option of prison both for public protection and the rule of law. The only people enjoying the benefit of this bickering between police and judges is the government.
It may be worth reminding people that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states five purposes of sentencing. So, although ‘protection of the public’ is a purpose it is one of five. Some people may wish magistrates and judges to sentence as if it is the only purpose that’s not going to happen without a change in the law.
142 Purposes of sentencing
(1) Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offence must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing—
(a) the punishment of offenders,
(b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence),
(c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders,
(d) the protection of the public, and
(e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.
Non-JP readers may be interested to know that the purpose of sentencing is to achieve one or more of the following...
Punishment
Reduction in crime
Reform and rehabilitation
Protection of the public
Reparation
So, no mention of "The impact on the community" or "the message sent to the associates of the criminal", then?
Oh!
But, and as has been seen recently, the matters of rehabilitation and reparation are in some disarray.
Well, Head of Legal got most of it right:
"Garry Newlove's murder is about a culture of drugs, drunkenness and menace among young men; and about inadequate policing"
Strange that he forgot to add that bit about a negligent magistrate, too, eh?!
As for the assertions made by several above that Swellings would probably have gone on to kill somebody, somewhere, anyway - well, I'm scuppered! So, if we're all going to die, anyway, let's abolish hospitals - and there's no point in trying to find a cure for cancer either, is there.
I just find it very stupid that somebody who had shown his contempt for the law by ignoring previous bail restrictions was allowed, or rather given, the chance to do so again. And that is incredibly negligent, in my opinion
Jerry, lets follow your logic through for a second.
Swellings was on bail awaiting sentence for common assault. The Magistrates' felt able to say that he was not going to face a custodial sentence and so bailed him - despite his previous breaches of bail - details of which we still haven't had full disclosure of. Remember, breaches of bail can be as serious as threatening a witness or as minor as crossing a road and thereby 'entering' an artificial area that you have been banned from and the crossing back again.
Lets say they had remanded him, Gary Newlove would not have died on the night he did.
But if Swellings is the sort of scrote that we all think he is, he would have killed someone shortly after his release from a very short sentence. Perhaps it would have been Gary Newlove, just on a different day.
Should Swellings therefore have been locked up indefinitely for his minor assault? If not, then for how long?
Negligence requires a degree of forseeability. Could anyone forsee that a young man who had committed minor offences would go out with two friends (who weren't on bail) and kill someone?
I doubt the two friends had clean records. Was it negligent of the Magistrates' who last sentenced them to not lock them up indefinitely as they might kill?
Monday morning quarterbacking / Lord Justice of Armchair Appealing again.
W&G, let's (try and) follow your logic, shall we?
"The Magistrates' ... bailed him - despite his previous breaches of bail - details of which we still haven't had full disclosure of."
That's my point - he was bailed despite having a history of breaking bail terms (which have been mentioned on many websites, btw). That strikes me as absurd that he should be allowed bail again, when the odds were that he would ignore the terms of bail. Either the mag or the law is at fault here for making the decision to grant bail, clearly.
"But if Swellings is the sort of scrote that we all think he is, he would have killed someone shortly after his release from a very short sentence."
Or maybe he would have realised that the game was up and made an effort to change. You seem to be saying that it was inevitable that he would kill - how do you know that? Is it your crystal ball telling you? I find your logic absurd - absent, even.
"Should Swellings therefore have been locked up indefinitely for his minor assault?"
I never stated that he should. Why are you trying, and rather clumsily, to put words into my metaphorical mouth?
"Negligence requires a degree of forseeability."
Exactly - and anyone sensible would have been able to foresee that he would jump bail - again!
And ... I have no idea what 'Monday morning quarterbacking' means. Any chance of enlightenment, please?
Jerry V
I think Monday Morning Quarterbacking means people like you who only speak with hindsight and who never make a decision in real time, so never make a mistake.
They are the Pub bore, the Daily Mail headline writer, the BBC newsreader etc.
There are thousands of kids like Swellings being released every day on conditional bail with similar records and in similar situations who have never gone on to murder or harm anyone, but because there is one who has, then the whole system is tainted; magistrates and judges are cretins and not in touch with reality; Police are saints who would never release anybody, other that those to whom they increasingly give PNDs and CCs (for assault and public order and yes, even perverting the course of justice) because it gets them over the performance based pay threshold, because they can't be bothered to do it properly.
And the Monday Morning Quarterback can sit smug in the knowledge he could never have let this happen, because he has opted out of any involvement.
@ Wig and Gown
"But if Swellings is the sort of scrote that we all think he is, he would have killed someone shortly after his release from a very short sentence."
Two points:
"We all"?. Speak for yourself.
And,
"Could anyone forsee that a young man who had committed minor offences would go out with two friends (who weren't on bail) and kill someone?". Does this not contradict your position of "forseeing" Swellings' actions, indeed, does it not contradict your assumptions as to his companions?
Or am I misunderstanding your comments? In which case please clarify.
I suspect Monday morning quarterbacking also equates to armchair refereeing.
Most justices will see the Swellings' case differently from armchair referees because we find ourselves amongst these feral youths on a daily basis and trying to identify the next Swellings would be nigh on impossible.
What readers may fail to appreciate is that unlike 'failure to surrender to bail', which is a criminal offence, 'breach of bail conditions' is not.
Swellings had shown contempt for the 'system' but that was not a 'crime' and the magistrates had no powers to refuse bail as a 'punishment'.
I fail to see how a magistrate can be described as negligent, when all he has done is uphold the law.
Wig and Gown:
“If public protection was at the heart, then anyone found guilty of a crime would have to be jailed indefinately, for the argument would run that once someone had committed a crime, they might do so again and therefore must be locked up.”
The length of sentence should be based on previous convections and history. As well as the other factors.
“As for 'soft sentencing', is that just another way of saying that you dislike the fact that the Judiciary follow the law and sentencing guidelines rather than your battle-hardened and perhaps too harsh view?”
If guidelines are the main issue in sentencing then what is the point in a judiciary. Trained monkeys could do the job just as well. That isn’t a cheap jibe at the people who do the role but at the government who pretend to talk “tough on crime” but fail to deliver.
You say I may be battle hardened, I say two things, I see victims of crime on a daily basis and I see criminals in their natural habitat. This is far removed from a court room. They have no fear of court. At most it is a minor inconvenience for them. The joys of drinking, random violence and damage clearly outweigh this inconvenience. This isn’t coming from my mouth but theirs.
The author of this blog once said how as part of training they visit carious jails. I have always said that a good way to redress the balance would be for JPs to come out with us as part of their training to see the impact of crime on the community. But in the liberal led world of today that is not a good thing.
All too often courts hear the plight of the criminal whilst paying little or no attention to that of the victim.
“That's right, the Judiciary are stupid, gullible and easily persuadable”
I am not saying that. However they appear to have little regard for the impact of crimes.
PC Midlands
You make a good point but I made a point on IG's blog recently about how a job can skew a person's view of the world. I'm a Fireman and to me everything's a potential death trap because I've scraped countless people from under tube trains and pulled bodies from fires. So my house is a homage to safety, crammed full of smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors; my kids are bolted into their seats in the car and I wouldn't even use mouthwash before driving. BUT, I've never been mugged, never burgled or had my car nicked. My point is that you cannot define the rule of law based on a purely subjective view. If we did, then I'd have people who don't wear seatbelts locked up for life because that's what affects me.
As for your view of the magistracy, whilst I can see the value of them seeing your work first hand, aren't you merely attempting to sway them into seeing the world through your eyes in order to lock more people up? And how about Police spending time with Magistrates, having to weigh up the eveidence before them (not what you know from being with the scrotes 24-7) and being guided by proportionality? Magistrates live in the same place the Police do so I think your assertion that they "have little regard for the impact of crimes" is somewhat naiive and borne of the same ignorance to their role as you claim they have to yours.
PCM suggests that JPs spend time on patrol with the police to see what the effects of crime etc are. He fails to understand that most JPs don't live in big houses in the country safe from the world. We are from all walks of life - I have lived on council estates and still regularly visit them in my work and talk to the locals. This is the value of JPs compared to Judges and District Judges. It seems to me what the police and indeed some MPs want is the Bail Act changed to place the presumptive on no bail. Have you actually considered the consequences of this? This would be another step down the road of a "police state". The only people really defending liberty and the rule of law these days are the judiciary. You only have to look at the way government is trying to steer criminals away from the court system.
You have a good point there Essex JP. Across the police blogs, and occasionally here, we get gibes about 'liberal elites' and stuck-up magistrates 'sneering' from the bench. It's a class thing of course, and nonsense too.
My answers on a postcard:
Jerry V:
1) Are you aware what can constitute a breach of bail? i) bail conditions are sometimes set as keeping out of an arbitary area, wandering across which is a breach ii) turning up late to court can be considered a breach iii) committing a further offence
One of those is more serious than the others. We have no idea which Swellings committed.
2) You criticise me for suggesting that Swellings would have committed murder on release if he had been jailed. You suggest that he would have changed had he been jailed. You then suggest that I my logic is absurd because I am using a crystal ball.
You on the other hand wanted the lay bench who bailed Swellings to have used their crystal ball to see that a boy who had committed minor offences would go on to kill.
Perhaps we are both guilty of crystal ball gazing.
3) Its not clumsy words Jerry. You wanted Swellings remanded for his minor offence. You wanted that because he had breached his bail conditions. How long should he have been incarcerated for?
4) See crystal ball gazing above. A very large number of people on bail do not commit offences whilst they await their trial - sadly for the lay bench who bailed Swellings he killed someone. Had he kept himself out of trouble or committed a minor offence, he would have remained anonymous and many of the MMQ would not have cared.
Chuck - I don't think that we could have forseen anyone of them committing this murder.
Apologies for the 'we all' prefix if it doesn't apply to you (or anyone else).
PCM - we seem to agree on many points. I think the Judiciary do understand what the victims of crime feel. Remember that they hear them give evidence on a regular basis.
The problem seems to be legislation and those who draft it. The Politicians keep narrowing Judicial discretion to the point that we could and frankly should have trained monkeys or automatons doing it for us. There will be no need for Bystander to give up his time - which could sadly mean the end of this blog....
@ Wig and Gown,
"Chuck - I don't think that we could have forseen anyone of them committing this murder."
Then presumably you have withdrawn your original comment: "But if Swellings is the sort of scrote that we all think he is, he would have killed someone shortly after his release from a very short sentence. Perhaps it would have been Gary Newlove, just on a different day."
And do not apologise to me for "we all". I'm certainly not offended, but merely in the business of indicating that not everyone might agree with your view - as you'll obviously understand.
I've been following this debate with increasing bafflement as to why some participants consider it correct for the court to have released Swellings on 10th August. It’s true that much comment has been made with the benefit of hindsight, so I thought I’d try to look at his record without that benefit.
Here is a relevant links:
Adam Swellings: Crime and court history
http://tinyurl.com/2cl5pa
Taking off the 20/20 hindsight glasses, and stepping back in time to the last time he was bailed, let's just look at this simple list of offences and dates.
He's got convictions/reprimand/guilty pleas for: theft of motor vehicle, common assault on 15-year-old boy, battery and harassment of 16-year old boy, assault on 16-year-old girl. He's interfered with a witness, contrary to an explicit restraining order, on 4 occasions, culminating in physical assault.
In the final week, he pleads guilty in the Crown Court on Wednesday 1st August to the assault on the 16-year-old witness. He's released on bail- presumably because a non-custodial sentence is being considered. He assaults Paul Collinson at 8pm that day.
Then on Friday 3rd August he's "Re-bailed in absence over assault on girl by Warrington Crown Court". I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that means he's failed to turn up, presumably because he's in Runcorn magistrates court.
So then we get to 10th August, when he's up in front of Warrington magistrates pleading guilty to the attack on Paul Collinson. He's now released on bail, while awaiting sentencing for two offences of violence, the second committed on while on bail for the first. The first had to be dealt with in the Crown Court.
He's harassed a witness 4 times, and he's now got convictions or guilty pleas for 4 separate offences involving violence.
I understand that you can't remand in custody if there's no chance of a custodial sentence. This leaves me with three questions:
1) How far was he from a custodial sentence being considered?
2) If a custodial sentence had been considered, would bail have been ruled out because he might interfere with witnesses, or because he might re-offend while on bail, or both, or neither?
3) He left the Crown Court on 1st August, having entered a guilty plea to assaulting the girl, and with the sentence for that hanging over him- surely a prime time for him to be on his best behaviour. He then committed a further assault at 8pm that evening. How, on 10th of August, can the risk of him re-offending have been assessed as anything other than high?
None of the above refers to Gary Newlove, as that encounter lay in the future when he was in the court in Warrington, and no crystal ball was available. But how, given the facts above, would the bench's assessment of risk have been done?
(For more detail//background/comment see
Court set thug free to murder father of three
http://tinyurl.com/2asrx8
'Law's failure began with my daughter'
http://tinyurl.com/26hltx
but do note my analysis above relies entirely on the list of offences and dates).
For what it’s worth, I think that the bail act is fine in its current form.
That wasn’t the problem in this case.
On the facts as reported a custodial sentence should have been given in the first place which would have prevented this tragedy.
,,, and, as sure as might follows day, Straw now says that people charged with murder should not get bail:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
Why stop at murder? To hell with the presumption of innocence. It appears to have no place in the Kafkaesque New Labour Britain.
Commenting by HaloScan
