Seems about right, these sentences

The men became the first to be sentenced by crown court judges for their involvement in the mass civil disobedience that swept England.

Jordan Blackshaw, 20, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, were jailed for four years each for inciting the disorder on Facebook despite both being of previous good character.

Blackshaw created an event on the site entitled \’Smash Down Northwich Town\’, while Sutcliffe-Keenan encouraging a riot on the same site.

As was pointed out in the comments a few days back, the setences for riot arising from Bradford were in hte three to four year range.

Perhaps one of our resident lawyers can tell us whether \”incitement to\” normally carries the same sort of sentence as \”actually doing it\”?

This is utter stupidity of course:

Theresa May signalled police are to get tough new powers to create “no go areas” with blanket curfew orders.

The police already have all the powers they need: see any rioting at the moment? But then Home Sectretaries always, but always, seem to see their job as eroding our rights rather than protecting them.

In a separate hearing at Manchester Crown Court, Michael Gillespie-Doyle, 18, of Tameside, David Beswick, 31 and Stephen Carter, 26, both from Salford, were all jailed for their part in events last week.

Gillespie Doyle, who has at least 12 previous convictions for violence and dishonesty, was jailed for two years after being caught \”red-handed\” by police about to steal cigarettes in a Salisbury\’s shop in Manchester.

Beswick, a coach driver and father-of-one, mouthed the word `Ouch` after being jailed for 18 months for handling stolen goods.

And Carter, 26, stormed out of the dock after being given a 16-month prison sentence for handling £500 worth of shirts and shoes stolen from the Pretty Green boutique owned by Liam Gallagher.

A fourth defendant, Linda Boyd, 31, who has 62 previous convictions, was given a 10 month jail term suspended for two years after she was caught trying to drag away a £500 haul of alcohol, cigarettes and tobacco.

But why does the bird get the suspended sentence?

19 comments on “Seems about right, these sentences

  1. Worth reading the Manchester case sentencing remarks. The woman got a suspended sentence because the judge was persuaded that she had beaten her heroin addiction and that further treatment for her alcoholism would be better in keeping her going in this direction. He ordered monthly reports on her progress and conduct to be assigned to him personally. The judge was the senior crown court judge for Manchester and set out a highly uncompromising stance to the riots (I repeat it is worth reading!) so no bleeding heart.

    Re incitement – in general “inchoate” versions of offences like attempts, conspiracy, aiding, abetting, counseling and procuring are capable of the same sentence. You make serious plans with some others to fly planes into a tower block but get caught before you can do it, you get the same sentence as if you had been successful.

  2. As far as I’m aware, no-one who actually took part in the riots and looting got such severe sentences as these two losers for merely incitement.

    Tim adds: These are the first sentences to come from the Crown Courts though. Everyone else sentenced so far has been in the Magistrates’ Courts, where the maximum sentence for one charge is 6 months and even with two or more, a maximum of 1 year consecutively.

    My expectation is that we’ll see a lot more three and four year sentences as those currently on remand come up for sentencing in the Crown Courts over the next few weeks/months.

  3. Common law on incitement was generally replaced by sections 44, 45, 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.

    Rioting under Public Order Act 1986 carries a 10 year sentence. Many riots result in arson, if there had been a riot that had arson carries a life sentence.

    Yes, inciting, encouraging or assisting crime carries the same sentence as the crime you are inciting, encouraging or assisting.

  4. “Linda Boyd, 31, who has 62 previous convictions”

    At what stage does someone look at the charge sheet and say “what we’ve been doing so far isn’t working”?

    How does _anyone_ manage to get to 62 previous convictions without all sorts of heads rolling?

  5. According to the mail:

    He sentenced Blackshaw, who admitted a charge of arranging an event capable of encouraging the commission of offences including burglary, criminal damage and riot, to four years in a young offenders institution.

    They were done under S46 SCA2007 (encouraging multiple offences) they can be sentenced as per the most serious offence.

    Criminal Damage (including arson) tha recklessly endangers life can carry a life sentence. But criminal damage, theft and riot are all 10 year max tariffs.

  6. Riots organised on Facebook come as a complete surprise to Plod. Have they been taking lessons from Military Intelligence?

  7. “…who has at least 12 previous convictions for violence and dishonesty”: why “at least”? What’s the difficulty in counting them?

  8. “…At what stage does someone look at the charge sheet and say “what we’ve been doing so far isn’t working”?..”

    It would appear the answer is ‘Hardly ever’.

  9. As for how anyone can manage to get to 62 previous convictions without all sorts of heads rolling, why, the answer’s simple.

    These people don’t have to live in the areas they release these feral scum back to, and so are never affected by their depredations. So, why should they care?

  10. With luck, the middleclass lefties bleating that none of the rioters will get 16 months like poor, msunderstood Charlie Gilmour got, and it’s sooooo unfair, will shut up now.

  11. It’s called a “Pussy Pass”, Tim.

    Anyway, on the rest of it, needless to say these new powers will inevitably not be used against rioters, but as general control orders; as with the alcohol free zones thing taht were supposed to be for specific problems, and immediately were deployed by Temperance inclined councils to cover entire towns.

    God, I hate conservatives sometimes. They’re such fuckwits, they really are.

  12. Bloke in France: erm, no. These muppets were sentenced for inciting riots that *didn’t actually happen*. Because arranging riots on Facebook is obviously ridiculous, not least because the cops were aware of them. The riots that did happen, and which took the cops buy surprise, weren’t arranged on Facebook.

    Chris: those’ll be the imaginary middleclass lefties in your head, right?

  13. The sentences only seem harsh because of the pathetic sentences we have come to expect for thieving, robbery and violence outside of a riot. Sentences of 6 months for theft should be the norm, not the exception because of a riot in progress.

    As the police chief said, he had to deploy his men in case the mob did show up. So there were consequences from the facebook postings.

  14. It is highly unlikely that “62 previous convictions” means she has been arrested 62 times. As a drug addict,it is highly likely she has committed a series of crimes, and in all likelihood been arrested mre than once, but, no doubt on the advice of her lawyer, “has asked for other crimes to be taken into consideration” so that the penalties for conviction run concurrently, rather than consecutively.

  15. As the police chief said, he had to deploy his men in case the mob did show up. So there were consequences from the facebook postings.

    ie “some policemen had to work overtime”? I mean, the posters-in-question are clearly dicks, but that doesn’t strike me as ‘terrible consequence of the year’.

  16. John b, no, there was one such commenting on one of the ‘Telegraph’ blogs the other day. Forgive me if I can’t give a url; I don’t bother to make a note of where to find the shite produced by you and your ilk.

  17. Your alleged Telegraph commenter isn’t my ilk in the least – I make logical, evidence-driven comments that you disagree with (in much the same way that Tim or Ian B make logical, evidence-driven comments that I often disagree with).

    On the other hand, you spout shit and refuse to produce evidence when challenged, putting you in the same trollish category as the likes of Murphy.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.