Sentence (law)

Rishi Sunak’s plan to redefine extremism is disingenuous – and a threat to democracy

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

This, he has argued, is needed because “our democracy itself is a target” of antisemitic and Islamophobic extremists.

Key Points:

This, he has argued, is needed because “our democracy itself is a target” of antisemitic and Islamophobic extremists.
However, the reality is that no measures do more damage to democracy than policy proposals like the one Sunak is promoting.
The UK already has a definition for extremism, which is used in efforts to tackle terrorism.
A key reason why this definition is not contained in legislation is because it is so vague and unclear.

Vague to vaguer

What does it mean to undermine or overturn the rights or freedoms of others?
Would arguing for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights count meet the bar?
What about calling for restrictions on the right to free speech or the right to protest?

Existing laws are enough

But the UK already has numerous laws in place to tackle what it considers to be unacceptable behaviour at protests.
The Terrorism Act (which is also incredibly broad) can be used to prosecute people who damage property or create a serious risk to public safety during protests.
Counter-terrorism laws can also capture forms of expression at public demonstrations or online.
This can now be applied by he police to criminalise protests that are considered to be making too much noise.

The right to protest

People may self-censor out of fear of being identified as extremist, not least when their employer has a duty under Prevent.
There is a deep danger of conflating protest with extremism and terrorism, undermining the legitimacy of these protests.
To stretch the concept of extremism to cover these views is what is actually undermining democracy and the rights and freedoms of others.

Alan Greene does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Ending legal aid for cultural reports at sentencing may only make court hearings longer and costlier

Retrieved on:

Thursday, February 15, 2024

Mental health, Shoplifting, Ministry, Lawyer, Punishment, Sentence (law), Government, Risk, Family, Rehabilitation, Social, Child, Justice

This may be popular, even populist, but it carries the risk of not achieving any of those purported goals.

Key Points:

This may be popular, even populist, but it carries the risk of not achieving any of those purported goals.
In fact, court hearings may become longer and more expensive.
It is governed by the Sentencing Act 2002, which requires judges to take into account many factors when considering a sentence.

What judges must take into account

Judges also need to be aware of the likely effect of a sentence.
In short, judges need a lot of information to help reach a proper sentence.
Similarly, reports about alcohol or drug use that cause a disproportionate amount of offending can be introduced from relevant specialists.

Reasons for offending

But probation officers have limits: they may not have much time and may not have the necessary expertise.
When parliament passed the Criminal Justice Act 1985, section 16 allowed a request for the court to hear from someone about a person’s “ethnic or cultural background”, how that might be relevant to the reason for offending, and how it might help avoid further offending.
More particularly, they can address how that might have been part of the offending, how it might be relevant to any sentence, and how support might help prevent further offending.

The right to a fair trial

But this is partly because it has been clarified that legal aid was the correct funding mechanism for cultural reports.
Read more:
New Zealand's legal aid crisis is eroding the right to justice – that's unacceptable in a fair society
The Ministry of Justice used to pay for them because they were considered a court report.
The fundamental right to a fair trial includes a fair sentencing hearing, with the judge having all information that is useful.

Shifting costs elsewhere

On one level, therefore, there will be an additional barrier to equal justice for those who are poorer.
So, we can expect lawyers to ask other experts, including drug counsellors or psychiatrists, to collate and include relevant information.
This will potentially cost a lot more than any savings to legal aid from not funding section 27 reports.

Kris Gledhill is currently working on a project relating to the Sentencing Act 2002 the expenses for which are funded by the Borrin Foundation. He is also a co-opted member of the Criminal Bar Association's Executive Committee. The views expressed in this article are his own.

AI could change how we obtain legal advice, but those without access to the technology could be left out in the cold

Retrieved on:

Thursday, January 4, 2024

Digital, Punishment, Hand, Disability, SRA, Chat, Sentence (law), Digital divide, LASPO, Technology, AI, Internet, Artificial intelligence, Medicine, Algorithm, Medical device

The legal profession has already been using artificial intelligence (AI) for several years, to automate reviews and predict outcomes, among other functions.

Key Points:

The legal profession has already been using artificial intelligence (AI) for several years, to automate reviews and predict outcomes, among other functions.
In effect, certain law firms have already deployed AI tools to assist their employed solicitors with day-to-day work.
This technology could be enormously beneficial both to people in the legal profession and clients.

Reserved approach

It could even lead to miscarriages of justice as a result of courts being inadvertently misled – such as fake precedents being submitted.
This was an important first step in addressing the risks, but the UK’s overall approach is still relatively reserved.
The UK’s approach is decidedly less strict than, say, the EU’s AI Act, which has been in development for many years.

But there seems to be a genuine absence of consideration regarding the technology’s true impact on access to justice.
The hype implies that those who may at some point be faced with litigation will be equipped with expert tools to guide them through the process.

Digital divide

The resolution process of the courts is unlike that of basic businesses where some customer issues can be settled through a chatbot.
Legal problems vary and would require a modified response depending on the matter at hand.
Even current chatbots are sometimes incapable of providing resolution to certain issues, often passing customers to a human chatroom in these instances.
The Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO 2012) introduced funding cuts to legal aid, narrowing financial eligibility criteria.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Coronation arrests: how the new public order law disrupted protesters' once in a lifetime opportunity

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

It was also a once in a lifetime event for the 64 mostly republican protesters who were arrested on coronation day.

Key Points:

It was also a once in a lifetime event for the 64 mostly republican protesters who were arrested on coronation day.
The police expressed regret not explicitly for arresting them, but that they were “unable to join the wider group of protesters” elsewhere.
No equipment is needed, though in the case of the coronation, the police claimed that luggage straps could be used.
Public nuisance was recently codified (from the common law) in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

The right to protest

In UK domestic law, the right to protest is guaranteed in the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
An important legal principle when considering how, when and where people should be able to protest is that limited forms of disruptive protest are still protected by law.
The court held that an intentionally disruptive protest could constitute a “reasonable excuse” in law, and thus be protected – disruption does not mean protesters automatically lose their rights.

Chilling effects

Many senior retired officers, now free to speak out, were very concerned at the direction of travel in the new public order law.
There are also real concerns about police use of social media to spread (intentionally or not) mixed messages about their powers and the law.
But as David Byrne goes on to remind us, “same as it ever was” – in music, as in policing.

MOD Pizza Launches the “MOD Opportunity Network” – A National Coalition to Create Jobs and Support People With Barriers to Employment

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, April 26, 2023

MOD Super-Fast Pizza Holdings, LLC (“MOD Pizza”, “MOD” or the “Company”) the people-first, purpose-led fast casual pizza brand, today announced the launch of the MOD Opportunity Network (MOD O.N.

Key Points:

MOD Super-Fast Pizza Holdings, LLC (“MOD Pizza”, “MOD” or the “Company”) the people-first, purpose-led fast casual pizza brand, today announced the launch of the MOD Opportunity Network (MOD O.N.
), an innovative, national program dedicated to hiring and supporting people with barriers to employment.
View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230426005729/en/
MOD Pizza today announced the launch of the MOD Opportunity Network (MOD O.N.
), an innovative, national program dedicated to hiring and supporting people with barriers to employment.

NCLA Comment Encourages Sentencing Commission to Alleviate Harms Inflicted by Judicial Deference

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Supreme, Reading, Comment, Congress, Sentence (law), Sentencing guidelines, Commission, United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines, NCLA, Geography, Constitution, Policy, Supreme court, Havis, Guideline

NCLA sees the amendments as a first step to alleviating harm that Stinson deference inflicts.

Key Points:

NCLA sees the amendments as a first step to alleviating harm that Stinson deference inflicts.
But the Commission does not have to wait for that day to amend the Sentencing Guidelines so that Stinson deference need not be invoked.
NCLA released the following statement:
“Prior to the Sentencing Guidelines’ promulgation, sentencing practices varied wildly, which led to significant disparities between similarly situated individuals and conduct.
The Commission has the power to delete Guidelines language that triggers Stinson deference.

NCLA Amicus Brief Urges Supreme Court to Put an End to Deference to USSG Commentary

Retrieved on:

Thursday, October 20, 2022

NCLAs amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to grant Mr. Mosess petition and to put an end to the unconstitutional doctrine of Stinson deference once and for all.

Key Points:

NCLAs amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to grant Mr. Mosess petition and to put an end to the unconstitutional doctrine of Stinson deference once and for all.
Alternatively, at the very least, NCLA argues that the Supreme Court must rule that Stinson deference is unconstitutional whenever it would result in an increased criminal sentence, as it did for Mr. Moses.
Following the Supreme Courts 1993 decision in Stinson v. United States, the courts of appeals began to give nearly dispositive weight to the U.S.
NCLA argues that lenity is a traditional tool of statutory construction that the courts must apply before resorting to deference.

NCLA Amicus Brief Backs Cert Petition Challenging Deference to Sentencing Guidelines Commentary

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Under the current deference regime, district courts in seven circuits systematically violate the due-process rights of thousands of criminal defendants by applying Stinson deference to increase the Sentencing Guideline range beyond what Congress approved.

Key Points:

Under the current deference regime, district courts in seven circuits systematically violate the due-process rights of thousands of criminal defendants by applying Stinson deference to increase the Sentencing Guideline range beyond what Congress approved.
Following the Courts decision in Stinson, however, the circuit courts of appeals began to give disproportionate weight to the Commissions commentary whenever the Sentencing Guidelines plain text was at all ambiguous.
petition on behalf of client Marcus Broadway asking the Court to consider this issue in Marcus Broadway v. United States .
Mr. Wynns petition presents the Supreme Court a critical opportunity to clarify once and for all that courts do not owe deference to Commission commentary that expands the Sentencing Guidelines.