PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY OPINION, OR PERSONAL BELIEFS UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. THIS ARTICLE IS AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE LEGAL PROCESS, THE LAWS USED AND FACTS IN DEALING WITH THE 2024 RIOTS. UNDERSTANDING HOW HATE CRIMES ARE CLASSIFIED AND WHAT IS CULPABILITY. IT IS INTENDED AS GUIDANCE AND NOT LEGAL ADVICE; AS CRIMINALITY IS DECIDED ON THE MERITS OF EACH CASE.
Hi guys, I know it’s been a while, but with my move then contracting a chest infection, I have been out of action for a while. Easing back into a more regular schedule. Today, I will discuss the Rule of Law, the legal process and application of the law surrounding the prosecutions, of those individuals involved in the recent riots and a following article on those prosecuted under incitement to stir up hatred, through social media.
This article has been sparked by a number of individuals posting erroneous content online. Their discontent and comments are simply through a lack of understanding of, just how the legal process and criminal proceedings are conducted in the U.K. personal opinion including my own has no place in law. As you are all aware, there have been a number of trials dealing with the offenders, arrested and prosecuted for inciting and involving themselves in rioting, as well as others being involved, to what amounts to stirring up racial hatred, through comments made on social media platforms.
Looking at the CPS prosecutions and statements of fact, it would actually appear that those individuals involved in the actual public disorder, were prosecuted on a lesser offence of violent disorder. These offenders, have been extremely fortunate, not to have been prosecuted for riot. The distinction between that of riot and violent disorder, comes down to a simple fact. Firstly, riot:
Is defined under S1 Public Order Act 1986, as twelve or more people present together, who used or threatened unlawful violence for a common purpose; and that the conduct of them, was such as to cause a present person of reasonable firmness to fear for his/her personal safety.
Secondly, violent disorder:
Is defined under S2 Public Order Act 1986, as three or more persons are present together, that threaten or engage in unlawful violence, such that the conduct of the persons would ‘cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety’.
From the legal qualification described above, the main difference is realistically the number of people involved in the disorder. I am sure you have all watched MSM’s coverage of the riots and I think we can all agree, that there were more than 12 people present. So as I previously stated, on the face of it, the individuals involved were fortunate not to be prosecuted for riot, which’s carries a sentence of up to 10 years, whereas violent disorder carries a sentence of up to 5 years. So you may be asking; why weren’t the offenders charged with riot? Well, this is a decision made by the CPS, whom on many occasions will charge on a lesser offence, in order to guarantee a conviction.
One point to remember is, those arrested for violent disorder simply pleaded guilty. They have admitted they were involved and in the wrong. I am not getting into a discussion here about, their guilty pleas, as it is beyond the scope of this article and requires further investigation. This article is looking only, at their culpability and the action taken against them. Pleading guilty, means you accept the statements of fact and you are responsible for your actions. By doing this a defendant, is limiting the amount of time, that the court would waste by going to trial. In this situation, the case can progress straight to sentencing and as an incentive the defendant receives a reduction of their sentences by up to 1/3.
Now, most of the negative content I have witnessed has been direct at judges in these cases, namely criticising the length of sentences handed down. The public consensus of opinion is, the sentences handed out are excessively harsh. Ok let’s take a look at these beliefs. Furthermore, this article will only deal with those individuals, that were involved in the actual rioting.
Despite popular belief, Judges, do not hand out sentences willy nilly, sentencing, is not delivered by what a judges believes to be appropriate and proportionate. Magistrates and justices, refer to the sentencing guidelines, this a document published by the sentencing council. The guidelines were produced to ensure, that correct and proportionate sentences are handed down to offenders. Available online at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences.
I have followed a number of the cases and I have also viewed the evidence and the statements of fact, attached to those cases. I have also referred to the sentencing guidelines, for the offence of violent disorder. Looking at the sentencing guidelines, it would appear, that the sentences, are well within the guidelines, so are proportionate and correct, accordingly. Additionally, if a defendant or his representative believe the sentence is unduly harsh, there is a procedure for appeal, to have that sentence reduced. This is also true if there is a belief of a sentence being unduly lenient. However I must point out that the operative word here is ‘unduly’.
As stated at the beginning of this article, the content contained within, and in particular, this paragraph is not my opinion or personal belief. I have added the following, as a little bit of fun in order to prove a point. Please also bear in mind that I am playing devil’s advocate here, I neither support nor oppose any view or comments.
To all those of you that believe judges are biased, corrupt; again I will not discuss this topic here as it is outside the scope of this article, or just plain get it wrong complete the following test: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/research-and-resources/you-be-the-judge/. Please complete this test, with an open mind, without bias and complete objectivity. I guarantee, your sentence, will be much harsher, than that of a practicing justice. This test is completed by every undergraduate attending my University.
So now onto those individuals, that weren’t involved in the riots, but were shouting abuse at the police. I believe, this is where people are having the greatest problem understanding and acceptance of the law. I reiterate the following is not my opinion, but an explanation of the legal principles involved in the prosecutions baring in mind the CPS can uplift the seriousness of an incident if it deemed a hate crime. There are a number of legislative acts that deal with hate speech and hate crimes, which for ease of understanding will remain outside the scope of this document.
David Spring came into this category, he was prosecuted for violent disorder, by shouting abusive language and threatening behaviour towards a police officer. However I do have an opinion on this case, but will not offer it here as it will only confuse the issue of explaining legal principles.
Unfortunately, David pleaded guilty and was handed a sentence in line with the sentencing guidelines, which many believe unjust. Again he pleaded guilty so accordingly the sentence was proportionate and correct. David was shown an enormous amount of support, but as I have stated in the past the rule of law applies equally to all and justice is blind. Regardless of past acts of kindness, or even personal circumstances, which can only be offered in mitigation.
So far this article has only addressed the public disorder of one demographic, with many of you stating, members from other demographics were equally involved in the violence. It would appear they have not been held to the same levels of culpability. As previously stated; this article has nothing to do with my personal opinion, I am just highlighting the facts as they are. But in this instance, I will offer my opinion and say I agree, it would appear there has been a significant breakdown in the application of the rule of law.
I have discussed the rule of law on a number of occasions in the past; laws in the U.K. apply equally to everybody, without exception even Parliament. Therefore anyone involved in the disorder, should have faced the same justice. Especially any individuals who used the protection of their community as an excuse for public disorder. In fact these individuals should have arrested immediately, as there is no place for vigilante justice in the U.K. which in itself is a criminal offence.
My next article addresses the criminality of promoting hate speech, inciting violence and forwarding such content through social media and online platforms, highlighting the limited rights of Article 10.