What sentence will Russell Brand receive?

There is much speculation about what sentence Russell Brand will receive following his convictions today on one count of rape and three of sexual assault. He was acquitted of two further rapes and one attempted indecent assault.

With the very important warning that I have not seen or heard a word of the evidence, and am relying on press reports, it is possible to reach an educated guess at what the likely sentence will be.

The most serious conviction was for the 2009 rape of a woman in her early 20s. She was a huge fan of Mr Brand. She had had consensual sex with him after attending one of his performances. She had willingly gone to his Hampstead house, anticipating sexual activity, and told the jury that she then had consensual vaginal intercourse with him. She asked him to wear a condom. However, he then removed the condom and had anal intercourse with her. Her evidence was that she repeatedly begged him to stop, but he continued anyway.

“He didn’t give me a warning, he didn’t ask … I don’t know how long it took for me between it going on and me asking him to stop. I don’t think it was very long. I felt like I couldn’t speak or breathe, the amount of pain.” Continue reading “What sentence will Russell Brand receive?”

It’s not just about juries: The Courts and Tribunals Bill will institutionalise injustice in the Magistrates Courts

The Second Reading debate on the Courts and Tribunals Bill is taking place tomorrow. The Government hopes for a speedy passage of this legislation through Parliament, perhaps even before the May elections according to some Labour MPs. That seems a fairly improbable outcome given that it contains some of the most far reaching changes in the justice system for a generation, and is likely to be strongly opposed in both Houses of Parliament. If it is not passed by the end of the current session of Parliament, likely to be in late May, there is a procedure for “carrying over” the Bill into the next Parliamentary session. Given the Prime Minister’s somewhat uncertain future, and the Bill’s unpopularity, it is by no means inevitable that that would happen.

The central and most contentious provision in the Bill is to abolish trial by jury for all but some of the most serious offences. The objections to this appalling proposal have been well-articulated by others, including the Labour MP Karl Turner, and here by The Secret Barrister.

But it also contains other less publicised changes to criminal procedure, all of which are designed to ensure that more people are convicted more quickly and that having been convicted they have less chance to appeal. The Courts Minister Sarah Sackman describes this as improving justice for “victims.”

Her implication is that defendants can never themselves be victims, and that their rights can thus be sacrificed if this achieves more convictions. Continue reading “It’s not just about juries: The Courts and Tribunals Bill will institutionalise injustice in the Magistrates Courts”

Peter Sullivan: wrongly gaoled for 38 years by junk science and a complacent justice system

Just before midnight on Friday August 1st 1986 Diane Sindall, a 21 year old florist, ran out of petrol on a Birkenhead roundabout. She got out of her car and went to look for a 24 hour petrol station. She was no more than 500 yards from her car when she was struck on the head with a blunt instrument, dragged into an alleyway, stripped half-naked and sexually assaulted.

The following afternoon, Saturday August 2nd 1986, her battered and grossly mutilated body was found. The cause of death was a cerebral haemorrhage following multiple blows to the head. The mutilations included apparent bite marks to her breasts. The crime was obviously sexually motivated, and samples of semen, heavily diluted with rainwater, were taken from the outside of her body.

It was a particularly horrific murder and it caused fear and outrage well beyond Merseyside. Only 5 years earlier Peter Sutcliffe – The Yorkshire Ripper – had been convicted of the serial murders of thirteen women, all of whom had been mutilated after being attacked with blunt instruments. Continue reading “Peter Sullivan: wrongly gaoled for 38 years by junk science and a complacent justice system”

Will Lucy Connolly win her appeal against sentence?

Lucy Connolly’s appeal against sentence was heard on 15th May. Somewhat unusually for an appeal against sentence she was not given an immediate decision. The three judges hearing the case have reserved judgment, and say they will produce their judgment “as soon as possible.”

What are the chances that they will decide to reduce her 31 month prison sentence? Continue reading “Will Lucy Connolly win her appeal against sentence?”

Are juries fair?

Once again trial by jury is coming under scrutiny.

Boris Johnson had promised a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. It was never established. The former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab introduced a much mocked “Bill of Rights Bill” which contained an odd clause declaring that trial by jury was a right, except when it wasn’t. Mr Raab was sacked, his Bill was dropped and the appetite for legislation about criminal procedure faded.

However, times have changed. Against the background of a shrinking economy and a growing backlog of Crown Court cases Lord Leveson has been asked to conduct an “Independent Review of Criminal Courts.”

And this time, it seems, the government is likely to do something significant. It has juries in its sights. Continue reading “Are juries fair?”

The Bar Standards Board should not require barristers to become political activists

As a barrister my professional duty is to provide the best legal advice out of court and to represent my client’s interests fearlessly in court. For good and obvious reasons there are all sorts of things we are not allowed to do: mislead the court, discriminate between clients, handle clients’ money, and so on. Rather more nebulously, but perfectly reasonably, we are not allowed to bring the profession into disrepute.

But the Bar Standards Board, the body that regulates – and disciplines – the profession wants to go much further and add a further positive duty to tackle “counter-inclusive misconduct.” To this end it has proposed that individual barristers should have a duty to “act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion.” Continue reading “The Bar Standards Board should not require barristers to become political activists”

Why have the rioters not been charged with rioting?

A judge sitting at Hull Crown Court, HH Judge Thackray KC, has asked why some rioters have not been charged with riot.

“The prosecution do need to look, for those who are playing front and central roles, at the alternative charge of riot rather than violent disorder.”

I am not accusing Judge Thackray of some terrible unconstitutional power-grab, but on the whole judges should be cautious about making charging suggestions to the prosecution. It is not their job to choose the charges and judges need to be, and be seen to be, scrupulously impartial.

HHJ John Thackray KC. Not guilty of an unconstitutional power grab.

Nevertheless, his suggestion is an obvious one and it’s worth asking why the most serious riots in the last twelve years do not appear (yet) to have resulted in any prosecutions for Riot (to avoid confusion, in this post I’ll use the capitalised form to refer to the offence).

So far, most of those appearing in the Crown Court seem to have been charged, at most, with Violent Disorder, a charge under S.2 of the Public Order Act 1986 for which the maximum sentence is 5 years, although in practice, with credit given for an early guilty plea, sentences of 2 – 3 years are much more likely even in the current atmosphere where the need for deterrence has eclipsed the other purposes of sentencing. Riot is a much more serious offence and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Continue reading “Why have the rioters not been charged with rioting?”

Neither Conservative nor Labour have any plans to deal with the many criminal justice crises

The Conservative Party fought the 2019 General Election with a manifesto commitment to establish a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The promise was welcomed by almost everyone involved in criminal justice. Despite repeated attempts over the last four years to hold the government to its word, notably by the former Prisons Inspector Lord Ramsbotham, the promise was simply broken. There has never been any government apology or explanation; just vague mutterings about the pandemic making things rather difficult. Continue reading “Neither Conservative nor Labour have any plans to deal with the many criminal justice crises”

I don’t stand with Trudi Warner

On Thursday retired social worker Trudi Warner appeared at the a High court hearing to determine whether the Solicitor General could prosecute her for contempt of court. Her alleged contempt was to hold up a sign outside Inner London Crown Court.

The sign read:

“Jurors you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”

Her protest troubled Judge Silas Reid who was at the time trying a case involving climate protestors from Insulate Britain. They had blocked a road in a demonstration. Judge Reid had withdrawn various defences from the jury, and in particular refused to allow them to argue that their actions were justified by the threat of climate change. Continue reading “I don’t stand with Trudi Warner”

The Post Office “exonerations” Bill must also quash the convictions of unsuccessful appellants

Last week the government published the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill. It receives its second reading in the House of Commons today.

Clause 1 (1) provides:

“Every conviction to which this Act applies is quashed on the coming into force of this Act.”

The Bill will quash the convictions of all Sub-Postmasters and Postmistresses (“SPMs”) who were prosecuted by either the Post Office or the Crown Prosecution Service, whether they pleaded guilty, or were found guilty of a “relevant offence” (that is theft, fraud, false accounting or similar offences of dishonesty) against the Post Office between September 1996 and December 31 2018. Any who were instead formally cautioned will have their cautions expunged.

There will be no need for any of them to show that Horizon evidence was essential, or even relevant, to their convictions as long as they were working in a Post Office where Horizon was in use, and that the offences were allegedly committed while they were working “in connection with” or “for the purpose of” Post Office business. So long as these minimal conditions are fulfilled their convictions will be quashed.

The Bill does not apply where the prosecution was undertaken by an agency other than the Post Office or the CPS. This seems odd and unfair, because some prosecutions were carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions. Just as the CPS used Horizon and Post Office evidence, so did the Department for Work and Pensions; and it did not miraculously become reliable just because it was being used by the DWP.

Nevertheless, for the most part it is a good and necessary Bill. No doubt some guilty people will be cleared along with the innocent. Post Office employees convicted of stealing from the mail, or stealing from a till on the basis of CCTV evidence, could find themselves declared innocent even if their convictions had nothing to do with Horizon. So be it. Some wrongful acquittals are a small price to pay to help to rectify the most widespread miscarriage of justice scandal of modern times. Continue reading “The Post Office “exonerations” Bill must also quash the convictions of unsuccessful appellants”