Restorative Justice

There was a piece buried on the inner pages of some newspapers the other day regarding the sentence handed down by a Recorder to one Lee Williams, a convicted "cocaine-smuggler". In the Appeal Court, Lord Justice Pitchford felt that the 12-month suspended sentence was "unduly lenient" for Williams' crime, which involved the smuggling of around £150,000 worth of cocaine. I'm prepared to guess that "personal use" was probably not part of his defence, but who knows?

Booth - Reasonable?

The Recorder (a sort of part-time judge in Crown Courts, usually experienced barristers and QCs) came up with a suspended sentence because Williams had already served about nine months on remand and he was "in poor health". Pitchford went for a custodial period of three and a half years after the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve sought the review. Sir Christopher Pitchford was part of the Sentencing Working Group under the Gage Commission, reporting to the Ministry of Justice in 2008, so probably knows what he's talking about.  In fairness to the Recorder, however, it is entirely possible that Williams, with good behaviour on the inside along with his need for medical attention, would, in all likelihood, serve little more than his remand term anyway so maybe it was in the interests of all concerned to pass a non-custodial punishment at that point in Williams' criminal career.

Lord Justice
Pitchford - Fair?

The justice system faces these sorts of challenges every day and as "tariffs" have plenty of latitude for judges and magistrates to use, it's not surprising that the opinions offered and subsequent sentences handed down by members of the judiciary can differ widely. One reason why Williams' case has received attention (and will likely get much more) is that the Recorder was Cherie Booth QC. The other reason is the mere fact that Williams is a "drug smuggler" so, in the court of public opinion, how the hell can he get a suspended sentence? "Hanging's to good for them..." might be the kind of response from any ubiquitous "Nosher Biggs", cabbie and EDL sympathiser.

And that's where the main issue lies. While the Criminal Justice System is complicated in the extreme, its results tend to be distilled into headlines; the recent screaming in red-tops and broadhseets alike over the sentencing of rioters and looters in London and elsewhere being classic examples.

Williams' case is also a good example of where we need to get underneath the headline and understand what has driven decisions. Now I am not, and never have been, a fan of Cherie Booth but that has been due to her antics as Cherie Blair, "First Lady", rather than in her role as barrister and, latterly, judge and it seems to me that her decision in the Williams case was a reasonable one. But what else could Pitchford do when he was asked to review? To go along with Booth's decision may have smacked of protectionism within the wierd world of the bewigged.

We can all be critical of sentencing decisions but very few of us know what really leads to those decisions. Unless you are the perpetrator, the world of our justice system is at best, clouded. Even sitting on a jury, one is only party to the points in a criminal case that the judge decides are relevant. From the crime itself, its investigation, an arrest, a charge, CPS actions, representation through solicitors and counsel through to trial and conviction or acquittal is a costly and tortuous process.


Clarke - Sysyphus would envy him?



It seems that these days the process is, above all else, supposed to satisfy society's wish to see "justice done". But just as judges may have differing views on punishments, so do individual members of the public have differing opinions on whether that justice has been done or, more prosaically, "seen to have been done". Add to that the more insidious layer of politicians hoping to increase their popularity through changes of, and influences upon the criminal justice system and it's a wonder the whole thing doesn't come juddering to a bureaucratic and operational halt. The proposal of elected chiefs of police would only complicate matters further. On top of everything else, International authorities and lobby groups on either side of the "Human Rights" debate regularly wade in to our justice system, overlaying obfuscating complications that must make Ken Clarke's tasks look more challenging than those of Sysyphus. But, as this must be Clarke's last rally in Cabinet, I think I'd rather have him there than some ambitious young thing like Louise Mensch or, God help us, the odious Keith Vaz, in the unlikely event the adenoidal Miliband (as opposed to his infinitely more accomplished brother) ever comes to power.

If, as I've assumed thus far, the sentencing and punishment side of this matter is the fundamental issue for the public as those two aspects demonstrate an outcome (however simplistic), then that outcome must, above all else, be meaningful to victims of crime.

There is a question that needs to be answered. Is "Restorative Justice" the approach for our future? By that, I don't mean some "eye-for-an-eye" biblical solution, or media-engineering around rioters cleaning up or the curious "Community Payback" chain-gangs of offenders in high-viz tabards removing litter from roadsides.



RJC - Worth a Good Look?



The likes of the Restorative Justice Council would normally have been on my list of Thinktankery Quango crap but just take a look, especially at the stories about real victims of crime. I doubt that they can make a difference with the utterly irredeemable, criminal shits of this world but the RJC's work is commendable, especially in the sphere of youth offending. Some of the outcomes for victims have been remarkable and, as an associated point, the outcomes for the offenders have also been, on the face of it, life-changing. There has to be, at the very least, a spark of human decency in even the worst of us. OK, maybe not the criminally insane on the extremes of the graph, but just your regular violent, thieving, assaulting, defrauding bastard. Instead of making excuses for their criminal behaviour, give them a long hard look at the consequences of what they've done and maybe, just maybe, a few may be turned around...



The Restorative Justice ideology does not form part of our justice system in the UK at a legal precedent level although I am sure that some judges really try to plod through the porridge of the processes to make, as the Mikado said, "the punishment fit the crime" and then, as WS Gilbert failed to add, "make the victim feel a whol lot better". That's probably because it wouldn't have rhymed or scanned or fitted in with the plot of the operetta.

The latitudes afforded within the sentencing guidlines and tariffs could be extended to encompass restorative justice, but doubtless the politics and the voxpop will get in the way. However, inch by inch, we may get somewhere with this as long as the victims can be seen and understood to be at the heart of policy.

Fat chance...???

But wouldn't you love it to be..?