Criminal Sentences for Looters

It has been a number of weeks since the recent ‘looting’ disturbances that took place in town centres throughout the country. In this time, courts have dealt with unprecedented numbers of people accused of crimes relating to these disturbances. It is clear that the Courts have sought to reflect the widespread public anger in relation to these incidents through their treatment of the accused. 

The latest figures released by the Ministry of Justice show that the number of defendants remanded in custody nationally by courts has increased from a rate of 10% to 70%. For those who have been sentenced by the Magistrates’ Court, over 50% of defendants have been given prison sentences averaging four and half months each. This can be compared with a ‘normal’ rate of imprisonment of approximately 12%, and an average prison sentence of two and a half months. This increase in the use of custodial sentences has put enormous strain on the Prison Service, as the prison population has increased by 1,350 in just three weeks. 

Many defendants have had their cases sent to the Crown Court, where judges have higher sentencing powers, to be sentenced. While most of these cases have yet to be dealt with, Crown Court judges are passing longer than usual sentences in order to deter people from engaging in this disorder in the future. 

Crown Court judges are following guidance made by The Recorder of Manchester in coming to sentence offenders. These guidelines refer to the usual offences that would have taken place during incidents of ‘looting’. In the case of Regina v Carter & Others, the Recorder set out the following guidelines:

a. Organiser of riot or commercial burglaries 8 years upwards
b. Burglar who takes part in breaking into premises 4 -7 years
c. Arson, lives of others in actual danger 6 years upwards
d. Arson; otherwise 3 -7 years
e. Robbery
i. with firearm, or where serious injury caused 7 -9 years
ii. with other weapon 3 -7 years
iii. no weapon/no significant injury 2 -5 years
f. Burglar who enters after others have broken in 2 -5 years
g. Theft of goods in street 1-4 years
h. Handling
i. Professional fence 2 -5 years
ii. Receiving on streets 1 -4 years
iii. Receiving elsewhere community penalty- 3 years
i. S 47/s 20 Assaults on Police/Fire-fighters/Paramedic/Those trying to prevent crime or protect property
i. If significant injury/weapon used 3- 4 years
ii. No significant injury/no weapon 1 – 3 years
j. Violent disorder 2-4 years
k. Affray 1-2.5 years

These are applicable to first time adult offenders who have been found guilty after a trial.

Because of the Courts’ harsh sentencing policies, anyone who becomes involved in a police investigation should take immediate legal advice.  

The criminal solicitors at Hanne & Co are available to assist you either at an interview under caution at the police station, or at Court in the event that you are charged. Please contact the specialist criminal department at Hanne & Co Solicitors on 020 7228 0017, or on our 24 hour emergency mobile phone number 07710 454125.

When is a garden fork not a garden fork?

This is a question posed in the House of Lords in a very famous housing case (Street –v- Mountford) in 1985. Lord Templeman memorably stated that “a five pronged implement for manual digging is a “fork”, whatever the manufacturer chooses to call it”.

A similar question has been asked very recently by the Supreme Court in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher . This case hinged on whether an individual was an “employee” or a self-employed contractor and therefore a “worker” for the purposes of employment legislation. The Supreme Court came to very similar view as to the Lord Templeman 26 years ago.

This case concerned 20 people who valetted cars. They paid their own tax and national insurance and also had to purchase uniforms and materials. Their contract said that they were not obliged to attend work although the original Tribunal did find that in practice they were expected to attend everyday and provide the services personally. 

However, despite all the written evidence and the fact that the Tribunal had held that these people had entered into a contract with their eyes wide open, the Supreme Court held that the reality of the relationship trumped any written contract. They were in reality obliged to provide their services themselves (albeit that there was a substitution clause in the contract) and this coupled with another accepted test of employment that of control, i.e. they were told what to do and when to do it, made them employees.

So the lesson to be learned is that the most important thing in a relationship between employer and employee is what happens in reality and not necessarily a cleverly constructed contract that seeks to preclude their status as employees. It is vital that both employers and employees/contractors are sure of the latter’s status and the implications that flow from this.

If you need advice on how the courts would interpret a situation and hence your obligations and exposure as an employer or employee then please do contact the experienced employment lawyers at Hanne & Co Solicitors on tel: 020 7228 0017 or by email to info@hanne.co.uk