IMPAIRED JUDGEMENTS
COUNT 22
LORD PHILLIPS
Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales
( Liberal-minded successor to Lord Woolf )
England’s ‘soft touch’ courts should be locking up far more crooks, a
shocking new report claims. We have the most lenient criminal justice
system in the western world, says the report by Civitas. The influential
think-tank’s deputy director, Robert Whelan, blasted the ‘criminal justice
elite’ for treating offenders like clients, and running the courts for their
benefit. He said: “The way the criminal justice system is currently run, is
an incitement to the professional criminal to continue his life of crime. We
need to build more prisons so that criminals know that the system is serious
about dealing with them. The problem is not that we’re sending too many
people to prison, but that we’re not sending people to prison soon enough.”
Despite some concern about overcrowded jails, the report reveals that, in
comparison to the number of crimes committed, our judges send fewer
offenders to prison than other EU countries. The Tory’s new Crime Policy,
launched in mid-August 2004, pledges to build more prisons, in direct
contrast to the policies of Tony Blair. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis
said: “This report demonstrates all too clearly why we need more prison
places to protect the public, something that can’t be done at the moment
because the prisons are full under this Government. The simple truth is that
prison works. One of the reasons we have 800,000 more crimes today than
in 1997 is because we have not been tough enough on criminals.”
When it comes to tackling crime, the Government, the courts and the
entire criminal justice system have quite simply got it wrong, according to
Robert Whelan. The Deputy Director of influential think tank Civitas
insists: “People say prison isn’t the answer, but it depends what the question
is. Our problem is not too many people in prison, but too much crime. Do
prisons make bad people into good people? No, they don’t. But neither does
anything else. The fact is that the alternatives to prison really don’t work,
and at least prison takes them out of society for a while so they are not
committing crime.” Just days after the Government and the Tories both
launched new crime policies, a new report by Civitas reveals that despite all
the tough talking from both sides, the system is failing, by allowing
criminals to walk free. Most criminals do not believe they will get caught, let
alone punished. And with conviction rates for most crimes down to pitifully
low levels, they are quite right. Criminologists estimate a tiny minority of
just 100,000 people are committing more than half the country’s crimes.
Their names and faces are well known to the police and the courts, yet most
are left to walk the streets with impunity. But since we already have one of
the highest prison populations in the western world, why is our country still
plagued by rising crime? What is going wrong? The Civitas report, Crime
and Civil Society, reveals the high prison population is not a result of overzealous sentencing, but is because our crime rate is much higher than in
comparable countries. We simply have more criminals to punish. And far
from being too harsh, our judges and magistrates actually jail fewer
criminals than their counterparts in any other Western country. Statistics
for 17 industrialised countries in Europe and around the world in the year
2000, showed an average of 35.2 crimes committed per each 100 of the
population.
In England and Wales, there were an amazing 54.5 crimes for every 100
people. In 2000, the average number of prisoners per 100,000 of the
population across the whole of the EU was 87. But in England and Wales,
that figure was 124. Across the EU there were 17.7 prisoners for every 1,000
recorded crimes, but in England and Wales, that figure was the far lower
12.7, clear proof that we actually imprison far fewer criminals than our
neighbours, not more. Yet according to the International Crime Victims’
Survey of the 17 nations, we suffer more crime per head than any other
country, we have the worst record for very serious offences and we have the
second highest rate for crimes such as robbery, sexual assaults and
violence. We expect prison to keep bad people out of circulation so they are
not ruining other, law-abiding people’s lives. Unfortunately, the people who
run the criminal justice system seem to be living on another planet where
they think they are running a system for the benefit of the criminal.
The criminal has become the client, but the client ought to be the law
abiding citizen. An elite group within the criminal justice system are
pursuing their own agenda, that is not supported by the majority of
ordinary people in this country. By the time most people actually get sent
to prison, they have got a list of charges as long as their arms, and that’s just
the offences they’ve been caught for. They should be in prison much
quicker. If people find that there is no immediate punishment for their
crimes, that they can get away with things, then they will. Ordinary people
want criminals to be dealt with firmly by the police and the courts, and they
are not getting that at the moment. A study of the US ‘get tough’ crime
policy, found that a 65 per cent rise in the number of burglars jailed
between 1981 and 1994 was coupled with a 50 per cent fall in burglaries. In
England and Wales over the same period, however, with a more ‘softly,
softly’ approach of more cautions and community sentences in force, the
number of burglars in jail fell 72 per cent. And the number of burglaries
went up 50 per cent. And Civitas blames the surge in crime on successive
governments’ lighter sentencing policies, and the belief that prison only
turns criminals into worse offenders. This policy has been accompanied by
numerous experiments to find ways of cutting habitual offending. 
Main Gate - HMYOI Huntercombe, nr Henley on Thames, Oxon
But Nadia Martin, co-author of the 200 page Civitas report, set to be
published in the Autumn, said: “ Some people say that if you put people in
prison they will become worse criminals, but there’s no factual evidence for
that at all. The truth is that we are not very good at reforming and
rehabilitating criminals, not only in Britain, but worldwide. And we need to
keep known offenders from reoffending.” There is wide evidence that very
little can be done in terms of rehabilitation, to convince repeat offenders to
end their life of crime. However, programmes to combat drug addiction,
which affects the majority of prisoners, and the teaching of literacy and
other skills, such as a trade or vocational qualification, can enable many
prisoners to go on to find jobs after leaving a jail. Ms Martin explains: “There
is very little evidence that rehabilitation programmes have very much effect
at all, and some have a worse effect than prison. Some people are very
compassionate about offenders. They want to give them more chances.
They say that it’s not their fault, they come from single-parent homes, that
it’s society’s fault they haven’t been given opportunities. But every
individual at every moment has responsibility for their own actions.” She
believes the problem is not that offenders do not get the opportunity to go
straight, but that they are given too many opportunities. “Criminals are
fined or face community sentencing instead of prison, but there is very little
enforcement of fines in this country, partly because the court system is so
completely overwhelmed.”
The report also slams the early release programme, which sees most
offenders complete only half of their sentence. As MS Martin says: “ We do
not think that people should be released after only half their term. If they
were meant to only serve two years, then they would have been sentenced
to two years.” Indeed, the failure to enforce punishments has made them
laughable to many criminals, in 2000-2001 only 63 per cent of fines were
actually collected. And ASBOs only work when criminal youths know they
will face the wrath of the prison system if they breach them. The report
concludes that offenders should face stiff jail terms for their third offences,
arguing that “after giving every opportunity for change, an effective system
must be willing to punish individuals who continue to commit crimes.”
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis MP said: “The simple truth is that
prison works. And it works by taking hardened criminals out of circulation.
Criminals need to know that if they commit a crime, then they will be
caught, and if they are caught, they will be punished, and for serious crimes,
that punishment will mean a prison sentence.”
(Author’s note: Very inspiring words from a budding Home Secretary in
the making! But how come during 18 years of Tory rule, immediately
before the Blair Government took office, with Michael Howard as their
Home Secretary, not much was done to contain career criminals either?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGE DAVID PAGET
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD BAILEY
On 10th September 2004 at the Old Bailey in London, a man who masterminded Britain’s biggest gun factory, brazenly thanked a judge for helping him to “get away with it”.
Stephen Herbert, 45, said he was delighted to receive only six years in jail for selling 574 guns to criminals. The sentence was immediately criticised by gun control campaigners. As he was led out of the Old Bailey dock, Herbert thanked Judge David Paget: “That’s lovely. Thanks very much. We got away with that.” Judge Paget was criticised a few years ago by children’s charities for giving “light”sentences to a group of elderly paedophiles.
But it emerged that Herbert’s jubilation may have been premature, when legal sources revealed that the prosecution had decided to apply to the Appeal Court to increase the sentence.
Labour MP Fabian Hamilton, who has campaigned against lax gun laws, said: “I am appalled by the sentence. People like this are as guilty as those who pull the trigger. They deserve life in prison because they are no better than murderers.” Herbert and his partner Gary Beard, 47, had faced up to 10 years in jail after pleading guilty to conspiracies to manufacture prohibited weapons, sell them and cause fear of violence with them.
The main gun factory was in Beard’s council flat in Sydenham, south London. But the plan was masterminded at Herbert’s home in Bermondsey. The court was told that over 14 months, the pair were responsible for putting more than one gun a day into the hands of criminals. They bought £40 replica Walther PPK handguns, and changed them from blank-firing to fully functioning weapons capable of killing. They were then sold on by a
shopkeeper, who cannot be named for legal reasons, with adapted ammunition for around £600 each, netting in excess of £350,000. Herbert had convictions for minor offences dating back 30 years, and Beard, a former jewellery maker, had been in
court for dishonesty.
Judge Paget said the only thing in the two men’s favour was that they pleaded guilty. If they had contested the case, they would have faced 9 years in jail. Campaign group Mothers Against Guns said in August 2004: “These converted guns are potentially even more lethal than a genuine firearm, as the bullets shatter on impact. One of our members’ sons died with 189 internal injuries from one bullet from a replica gun.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Paget - Central Criminal Court - Old Bailey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR JUSTICE COLLINS
HIGH COURT JUDGE
This top judge who caused uproar by freeing a terror suspect, has made a string of bizarre rulings which have infuriated politicians. High Court Judge Andrew Collins, sparked fury after releasing from custody an Algerian who was said to have been made mentally ill in jail, despite the fact that he had been described as a risk to national security. But Mr Justice Collins, 62, has been accused of ‘being a law unto himself,’ after making a whole series of judgements that have struck down Government decisions and confounded both Labour and Tory Ministers. Before the case involving the Algerian, who has been identified only as ‘G’, the judge had caused consternation on issues ranging from asylum, to fishing, and even Viagra. Educated at Eton and Cambridge, the married father of two is the son of left-wing cleric Canon John Collins, the 1950s founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
As a barrister before becoming a judge, he represented supporters of Militant Tendency and was counsel to the Hillsborough Inquiry, that was heavily critical of the police. Probably the most shocking of his rulings came in September 2001, when he left the Government’s ASYLUM policy in tatters, by stating that four Iraqi Kurds had been unlawfully held at Oakington Immigration Detention Centre in Cambridgeshire. But his
record of upsetting Ministers stretches as far back as October 1996, when he decided that the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, was wrong to stop BENEFITS for asylum seekers who delay making their applications after arriving in Britain. In July 1997, with two other judges, he ruled the Government was wrong to ban 107 TRAWLERS from fishing in UK waters, leading to compensation of £100 million being claimed. In May 1999 he said that Health Secretary Frank Dobson was wrong to order doctors to limit
PRESCRIPTION of Viagra. In November 2001 he insisted that Social Security PAYMENTS for Abu Qatada, Osama Bin Laden’s ‘Ambassador’ in Europe, must be restored, after being stopped by Social Security Secretary Alistair Darling. In July 2002, as Head of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, he ruled DETENTION of nine suspected al-Qaeda members was in breach of their human rights. The judgement was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. In February 2003 he decided that all asylum seekers have a right to social security benefits, overturning moves to stop illegal
immigrants SPONGING off the state.
Mr Justice Collins has refused to comment on the backlash to his release of terror suspect ‘G’. He was back in business in the Administration Division of the High Court, where he gave a Bosnian asylum seeker the right to appeal against a decision to boot him out. Mr Justice Collins’ clerk said: “The judge does not make any comment on any of these cases.” In the case of the terrorist suspect named only as ‘G’, Home Secretary David Blunkett could barely disguise his anger, as he vowed to strengthen anti-terror laws to prevent other extremists getting bail. He said: “Allowing someone like this bail, is an extraordinary decision which puts massive pressure on our anti-terror and security services and sends a very different signal to the one we have been sending.”
The Algerian, a polio sufferer, is now under virtual house arrest, after being freed from Belmarsh top-security prison in SE London. His lawyers had claimed that he had become psychotic while in jail and would try to kill himself if he was kept locked up. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission rejected Mr Blunkett’s claim that ‘G’ is a threat to UK security and should be kept behind bars. The Home Office would only say that its officials ‘regretted’ the decision to release the 35-year-old, who was one of 12 suspects held under emergency terror laws. The tagging is one of 11 bail conditions. ‘G’, who cannot walk unaided, will be monitored by phone 5 times a day. He cannot leave home, even to visit a mosque, without a police escort and cannot have visitors without permission. He cannot use a computer or mobile phone.
Tony Blair blasted Judge Collins over the terror suspect’s bailing. In a highly unusual move, the Prime Minister slammed the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Panel. The PM’s official spokesman said: “We regret the decision. Only 3 months ago the SIAC said there was reasonable suspicion that the appellant was an international terrorist and there was reasonable belief his presence is a risk to national security.” David Blunkett vowed to change the law so he can appeal against such judgements. “I have not called it ‘bonkers’, but no doubt other people will.”
Mr Blunkett’s reaction was criticised on BBC Newsnight by the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson. He said: “We will always get a few litigants who complain about the judge, but we really don’t expect this from people who hold the office of Secretary of State. He seems to show he has no respect for the law.”
MR JUSTICE COLLINS - HIGH COURT JUDGE
__________________________________________________________________________
JUDGE JULIAN HALL
Courtesy of Metro London Group 28th June 2008