The horrendous murder of three girls at a dance class in Southport on 27th July and the misreporting on social media of the identity of the alleged perpetrator was the catalyst for a range of street disturbances which threatened to spread nationwide during August.
It is interesting to note the role prosecutors and especially the judiciary played in stopping the disturbances before they engulfed the country. Indeed, the actions taken have great similarity to those adopted in Hampshire during the Swing Riots almost 200 years ago.
First, the prosecutors acted very quickly, using dedicated teams working long hours. They pulled together the relevant evidence (often from CCTV or police body cameras) and charged the alleged offenders with relatively straightforward offences such as violent disorder within 24 hours of the offence.
Second, the courts expedited the cases. Most of the early cases were guilty please presumably due to the overwhelming evidence and/or the hope of achieving a sentencing discount.
Third, those sentenced were given immediate custodial sentences. Although judges need to comply with the Sentencing Council Guidelines these provide considerable flexibility where a range of aggravating factors are present. The sentencing hearings were held and custodial sentences handed down without any adjournment or delay and while the disturbances were still continuing.
Fourth, the cases and the custodial sentences were given maximum publicity including the filming of the judge’s sentencing remarks. This provided a clear and unambiguous message that anyone participating in the disturbances could expect swift justice and a custodial sentence.
It worked. Within two weeks the disturbances had petered out and there has been a steady stream of defendants since that have been given maximum publicity. Whether the courts should be so close to the Executive in these circumstances is an issue worthy of further discussion.
