As the Bubble disappears...

...and as Hampshire police congratulate themselves on a relatively trouble-free Sunday afternoon, we will never know if the early kick-off, or if the fact the vast majority of football fans want to support their teams without resorting to yobbish behaviour would have been the winner today.

One thing I'm fairly certain of is it gives the powers that be more justification to interfere with the civil liberties of law-abiding football supporters, who make up the majority of those attending matches.

Watching football is not a crime.

Youtube racist tram woman released on bail

I've been ill over the last few days, but I noticed last week that the "racist tram rant woman", Emma West, was released on bail, as reported by the BBC.

I have read comments on various social network sites, and on forums expressing outrage that this woman has been locked up, whilst others have been allowed to walk. It's worth explaining that she had been remanded into custody for her own safety, following a plea before venue hearing on 6th December 2011. 

The news of her release has been muted in comparison to the reporting of her remand into custody. Either the media are concerned for her safety, and have decided not to go over the top with this news, or the story does not fit in with the agendas of certain publications.

Ms West is due back in court in the New Year, where she will be committed to the Crown Court for trial. It's worth pointing out to anyone reading this who doesn't understand court procedures, or hasn't followed the story in full, that she has chosen trial by jury. By indicating a "not guilty" plea, the magistrates have deemed the matter suitable to be tried in that court, where sentencing powers are limited. All defendants in this position are then given the choice to be tried in that court, or to have the matter dealt with in the Crown Court.

Statistically, there is more likelihood of an acquittal by jury than by magistrates, however if found guilty, the penalties could be more severe.

When court reporting falls short...

Another report in the Leicester Mercury, featuring the same Judge as in this post.

For the benefit of the lay person, a Plea In Mitigation is used to ensure that the appropriate sentence is given based upon the circumstances of the offence committed along with those of that particular defendant. If you are acting for a defendant, you are hoping to secure the most lenient sentence for your client. Bear in mind that advocates are acting on instruction from their client.

Reporting of sentencing hearings can fall woefully short, as seen in the earlier hearing. However, it's clearer from the later report that the defendant had previous convictions, and the Judge believed that he posed a risk. 

This isn't a new problem; sometimes, there can be outrage that a sentence is too high.

Media reports need to be taken at face value; ask what has not been reported, before questioning what has been reported.

When Neuroscience met Law

Findings by The Royal Society have shown what parents have known all along; it can take up to the age of 20 for the parts of the brain that govern our judgment and decision making ability to fully develop.

When considering the arguments for and against raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from the age of 10, physical development of the brain is not enough to decide if and when a young person should be held accountable for their actions. Environmental factors, most importantly, the role of parents and the wider family, or even community, can also have a significant impact on whether or not a child acts outside of the criminal law. If children are so susceptible to making decisions mean that they commit crimes, then why do most children manage to stay on the "right path"?

Most children by the age of 10 know the difference between right and wrong. I've read comments that this is not enough in itself to make children criminals. To an extent this is true; however it is a starting point, and one factor to be used. In 2010, the Children's Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson reported to the Government that under 12s did not fully understand their actions. I can remember being 12, even younger, and I can remember some children were very adapt at manipulating adults. Overhearing teenage conversations can be a real eye-opener as to what to say and what not to say to parents or teachers.

Whilst these findings are interesting, caution should be exercised in how they are applied. Children develop at different rates; plenty of adults don't make the right choices at times. There is a danger that unavoidable excuses are being provided, and that this could detract from the real reasons why children commit crimes, such as poor or irresponsible parenting, gang culture and peer pressure, and problems with society in general. Brain development is one part of an important jigsaw.

As the Muslim Girl Gang saga rumbles on...

I have been doing a bit of digging.

Last week, I wrote about a case in my home town of Leicester, which has sparked off debates on Twitter and Facebook, and to other blog posts, some of which are blatantly racist and pandering to an agenda.

Without going into the details again, many people are saying that no white girl would be "let off", and that she would be facing a jail term.

It's difficult to find a story that proves that white women are don't always receive an immediate custodial sentence. Sadly, there are many cases being processed through the criminal justice system involving alcohol-related violence; you just need to visit to the local Magistrates' or Crown Court to see this. Not every case is reported in the local media, let alone the nationals.

But I did find this story, from 2009.

Imagine the scene; a 16 year old girl has been out drinking. She is carrying a vodka glass. She gets into an argument with some other girls, and hits one of them in the face with the glass. The other girl receives injuries that required medical treatment, including stitches.

Is this an immigrant? Or someone, who because of her religion, that isn't used to drinking?

No. This is a white girl, in fact, a pretty, white girl. Like the Muslim girls causing scandal, she received a 6 month suspended prison sentence, despite having the added aggravating factor of using a weapon.

This story had passed me by, in all honesty. It's very easy to get blasé about drunken yob culture. It also appears to have passed everyone else by, as there are no comments on this story calling for this girl to actually serve the sentence handed to her. There isn't a petition either, urging the powers that be to review the sentence. The Telegraph also reports this incident, as well as The Mirror, in an article condemning the behaviour of young, drunken females. This includes another young woman given a suspended sentence after using a stiletto heel to stab someone.

In fact, the purpose and the tone of the article is to warn against the dangers of drinking, and the damaging consequences getting drunk can lead to. Again, the article doesn't go into the full reasons why that particular Judge decided to suspend the sentence, but it's a sad day when I have to take the time, trouble, and effort to find an example to show that it's not just minority groups given the benefit of the doubt in this country. The uproar surrounding the incident in Leicester smacks more of stirring up racial tensions than of shock, sadness, or surprise that girls from a religious group that normally shun alcohol have actually fully integrated into British society by drinking to excess and brawling.

A Tale of Two Reports: the Scandal of the Muslim Girl Gang

The Daily Mail has picked up on a story that was in my local newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, almost two weeks ago. Since its appearance online yesterday, it has sparked outrage amongst many, and now an online petition.

My suspicions were raised purely by the fact it was the Daily Mail, but a little digging has gone a long way.

The original headline was "Gang of women who assaulted me should have been sent to jail". A young, white, British woman, and her white, British boyfriend were set upon by four, drunk women of Somalian origin. It was a nasty, and a vicious attack, with words exchanged, and allegations of racism from both sides. The female victim sustained some nasty, but relatively superficial injuries, however the Judge accepted the basis that her partner had subjected the attackers to some kind of "unreasonable force".

Each of the four attackers received a six month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months after pleading guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).

A look at the Sentencing Guidelines suggests that the six month sentence is at the top end of the sentence range for a s.47 offence, this being an attack that was not pre-meditated with no lasting physical injury.

Of course the Judge, as far as I understand, has the discretion to suspend a custodial sentence, which he has done on this occasion. There are no real reasons given in the report for this, such as antecedent history, personal circumstances such as family and employment. The only mention of what was said in mitigation was:

"the attack was down to alcohol"

with the further explanation that excessive drinking is not something that is culturally usual with the attackers' community.

This report in itself makes the sentence given seen lenient, however when contrasted with the report in the Daily Mail, where the headline screams "Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims", a totally different version of events is already painted. 

"Freed" - were they ever in custody in the first place?

"Kill the white slag" - the local report says that the victim was called a "white bitch". No mention of death threats.

Was the reason these women were not imprisoned really down to their inability to take their drink?

Yet again, I have that horrible, sinking feeling I get whenever I read a report from the Daily Mail involving an immigrant group. The fact that it's two weeks since sentencing was passed does nothing to allay my fears. Here is another opportunity for this particular publication to whip up an hysterical frenzy to create a "them and us" situation between the so-called indigenous population and any Muslim group in existence in this country.

"You wouldn't see a white person get away with it", I read, as people focus on the racist element of this offence, more than the actual violence itself, or so it seems. As pointed out in the local report, both parties have made allegations of racism. It is something that is very difficult to prove without scores of witnesses, or recorded evidence. Even then, video footage is not enough. I cannot find a link, but an Aston Villa fan was cleared of racist chanting at Leicester City's old stadium, Filbert Street. Whilst CCTV footage showed him mouthing along to the chants, his defence was he had lost his voice, and therefore he didn't actually say anything racist. It was enough.

Both reports leave many unanswered questions; I wouldn't like to conclusively say if these sentences were or were not lenient based upon the information reported. I'm certainly not condoning the actions of these vile creatures. But my experience of seeing the Judges and Counsel in Leicester Crown Court, and of observing sentencing procedures, I am swayed towards this being the correct decision by this Judge. I would prefer to see a transcript before making up my mind.

* * * * *

I know that this case helps the argument for TV cameras in court. But I still don't think televising cases helps, as production companies are capable of editing those bits and pieces that fit their own agenda. The courts are open to the public, and live coverage offers nothing more. In fact, it may offer less, as it would no doubt have to be restricted for various reasons. It would not encourage more people to take an interest in local justice. Further, there aren't the resources to deal with every matter, especially instances like this one. I don't believe that there's the resources or the interest to video ever single thing that happens in court.

Leics Police Celebrate Falling Crime Rates

Today, the local Constabulary is slapping itself on it's metaphorical back.

Before joining in with the plaudits, I may be being cynical, but I do have the following questions:

• How many cautions have been issued in the 12 months in question?

• Similarly, how many fixed penalty notices have been issued?

• How many crimes have been "downgraded" so that they are not "notifiable"?

• How many Crime Related Incidents were reported but not included?

• How many incidents were reported to the Police, but they didn't turn up in time to deal with the incident effectively? 

• What are the British Crime Survey results for the county during the same period?

• How many recordable offences haven't been reported to the Police?

Obviously the answers to some questions will be harder to answer than others, but had the figures increased, I can see the headlines telling us all that the Police are reacting more quickly to incidents, and that the Force is working harder than ever to identify and bring criminals to justice.

But, as I say, I may be being cynical.