By David Young-
The Unduly Lenient Scheme is Britain’s answer to poor judicial thinking resulting in occasional lousy verdicts by judges.
Under the scheme, The Court of Appeal will only find a sentence to be unduly lenient where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying their mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. The scheme was established in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and came into force in 1989.
Getting in wrong should not be a possibility with trained judges, but in today’s judicial system with judges of differing philosophies and discretion on particular cases, weak lenient sentences do happen.
There are concerns over Britain’s sometimes lenient judicial system which on some occasions see criminals escape prison in cases where the general consensus is that they should be caged, or given a light sentence for their crime. Other times, they are jailed but given too little time behind bars.
The suspended sentence given to Jonathan Beauchamp after assaulting police officer Beauchamp makes one loss for words. What possible justification can there be for Mr. Beauchamp escaping prison, especially after assaulting an officer? Could the judge possibly have had a bias against the officer in question, or against the police force in general?
Beauchamp was given a year’s custodial sentence suspended for two years. He was also put on a five-month curfew and ordered to do 120 hours of unpaid work and pay £2,000 in compensation.
Some of the atrocities committed by the Met Police has badly damaged the reputation of the force in the eyes of the public, after many of its gate keepers allowed so many corrupt recruits join the force.
However, this fact does not change the important role officers play in society, or the gravity of a citizen of the Uk assaulting an officer on duty. Most observers are repelled by the suspended given to a man who knew he was attacking a law enforcement agent.
A suspended sentence is a sentence of imprisonment that is not immediately enforced, giving the offender a chance to avoid going to jail if they behave well during a specified period of probation. The idea behind suspended sentences is to provide an alternative to immediate imprisonment and to reduce the number of people in overcrowded prisons.
Suspended sentences have been dished out too often and are not being given to the right people.
The reasons for this vary, but some experts believe that the courts are under pressure to reduce the number of people in prison and are therefore being too lenient in their sentencing.
Impact Of Suspended Sentences
The impact of giving suspended sentences to those who should be jailed is significant because it undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Inadequate punishment for offenders can lead to a drop in confidence in the system , making members of the public more cynical about the rule of law. This can lead to a breakdown of social order and an increase in crime.
Statistics for 2021 reveal that 106 offenders had their sentences increased after HM Law Officers challenged their sentences because they thought they were too low.
That same year, the Law Officers received applications for 678 sentences to be reviewed which met the necessary criteria to be considered under the Scheme. Of these, 151 were referred to the Court of Appeal. The Court agreed that 106 of these sentences were too low and increased the sentences as a result.
Under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme, victims of crime, members of the public, and the Crown Prosecution Service can ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed if they believe they are too low.
Researcher and former social worker, Hortensia Daniels told this publication: ”Victims may feel that they have not received justice if the person who harmed them is not punished appropriately. This can lead to feelings of anger, frustration, and even trauma. Victims may also feel that the criminal justice system does not take their suffering seriously, which can damage their trust in the system and prevent them from reporting crimes in the future.
”Lenient sentences to those who should be jailed can have an impact on the offenders themselves. If offenders feel that they can get away with their crimes, they may become more emboldened and commit more serious crimes in the future. This can lead to a cycle of offending and imprisonment that is difficult to break”.
There are concerns that giving suspended sentences to those who should be jailed can have an impact on the wider community. Offenders not adequately punished feel that they can act with impunity and disregard the law. This can lead to a breakdown in social cohesion and an increase in antisocial behaviour, which can make communities less safe and less pleasant places to live.
The issue of suspended sentences is a complex one. While they can be an appropriate alternative to immediate imprisonment in some cases, there are concerns that they are being used too often and are not being given to the right people.
The impact of giving lenient sentences to those who should be jailed is significant, and can lead to a breakdown in public confidence in the criminal justice system, negative impacts on victims, an emboldening of offenders, and negative impacts on the wider community. It is important for the courts to consider these impacts carefully when deciding on the appropriate sentence for an offender.
Offenders who received increased sentences referred under the ULS scheme in 2021 include Frankie Smith for her role in the death of one-year-old Star Hobson, Ben John for domestic terrorism offences and Thomas Hughes for taking part in the abuse that led to the death of his son, six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes.
The ULS scheme came into force on 1st February 1989. It was introduced after public outcry over the lenient sentencing of the offenders involved in the 1986 rape of a 21-year-old. The victim was brutally raped by a gang of burglars at her father’s vicarage.
The first ever ULS hearing took place in July 1989 for a man who committed incest on his daughter and had his sentence doubled from 3 to 6 years.