Hacker News Reader

Comment by Daniel_Newby | Hacker News Reader

"Jordan Blackshaw, left, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, both pleaded guilty to using Facebook in attempts to fuel riots in Cheshire. They have been jailed for four years"

One wonders what sort of lawyer they had that recommended a guilty plea, or in the absence of a lawyer what was done to encourage that plea.

"Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Latchford, Warrington, used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August ..."

Dateline of story: Tuesday 16 August 2011

One also wonders how their lawyer allowed the situation to progress from alleged offense to media circus regarding four year sentence IN LESS THAN A WEEK. I don't know how Britain usually does things, but in the U.S. a non-violent victimless offender would generally spend most of the first week out on bail awaiting the gathering of evidence for a proper arraignment. Methinks someone has been railroaded.

View on HN

This was a crown court case, which is even more concerning. Crown court is used for serious offences which require a punishment of more than six months in prison, so for a case such as this to get from arrest to multi-year crown court sentence in a week is hugely concerning. A case has to first be heard in magistrates' court and handed to crown court, so it will have been in the hands of Chester Crown Court for just a day or two.

But for more minor offences attracting sentences under six months, magistrates' courts have been sitting through the night to "process" literally thousands of small-time, mainly first offender criminals.

Courts have been under great political pressure to serve swift and tough "justice" such that minor offences have attracted fairly lengthy prison sentences. Take the case of the mother of two young children who slept through the Manchester riots, but whose flatmate gave her a pair of stolen shorts from a store the morning after. She got five months in prison, for an offence which (if it even got as far as court) would normally attract a period of unpaid community work and/or a fine. [http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_m...]

I personally can't see how any of these people can get a fair trial when the court is sitting at 3am, it's less than a week since their arrest, and politicians are pressing hard on unpaid magistrates for disproportionate sentences in a vague attempt to give the impression that a government that's fairly weak and lacking in public support is being "tough on crime."

I feel for those who are caught up in this system right now. I am no apologist for criminals, but at the moment, people leading fairly fragile and frugal existences are having even that taken away for political point-scoring.

I wouldn't feel for those having justice dealt to them, not one bit. They not only participated in the riots - but made an effort to promote them.

As for the woman who accepted stolen goods from her flatmate - she deserved it. The right course of action would've been to advise her flatmate to turn herself in and return the goods, or actually call the police herself. She decides to go through the stolen goods, picking what she wants and wearing it.

As far as community work / fines - there's been a few articles on various newspapers by community workers and enforcers who plainly state that it has little to no impact. Dig a little deeper, and you'll find prisons in the UK happen to be quite nice; offering lot better facilities than many hostels. Plus, having spoken to a lot of officers, many state that if you don't clamp down on people when they break minor laws / rules - soon the boundaries shift and before they know it; they've become criminals.

Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree. What still irks me is that nearly two-thirds of my hard earned money is being taken by the government in taxes, and is feeding these people in a prison cell; likely where they have access to a TV with Sky, a PlayStation, 3 good meals a day, clean bedsheets and clothes etc etc.

Right, because everybody knows that taking a mother away from her children for five months to punish her for accepting a pair of pants that she didn't steal is justice.

</sarcasm>

Really, I hope you have receipts for every item you've ever received from someone else.

Sure, these riots are wrong on many levels but this is totally disproportionate.

Definitely a harsh ruling against her - but considering the legal system I doubt she'll spend any time in a prison cell.

Then there's a very touchy matter of wether you really want kids being brought up by a mother who clearly turns a blind eye to rioting / looting, and indirectly even partakes in criminal activity (knowingly handling stolen goods).

We also should arrest all the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya who rioted in their countries this year as well. Disorder must not be tolerated! Government power above all else! Bow before your gods, peasants!

There's rioting for the sake of a rebellion, hopefully leading to a revolution. Then there's rioting for the sake of looting and causing damage, nothing more.

Of course I agree that the UK riots were not the former, but I hope you see the problem with trusting the government to decide which one is which, and giving them special powers to punish people who riot (over and above the criminal acts of destruction that can already be punished under existing laws).

Tunisian riots started with people upset because of the way the police had abused some guy. Same as the UK. EXACT SAME THING. Not different at all. Police abuse provokes rioting that leads to the justified overthrow of the government. Only the ending turned out different.

This was not a dumb pointless soccer riot. It was provoked by the government violating the rights of the people. The people pushed back. Sometimes that turns violent. Sometimes it gets completely out of control. Sometimes it gets so out of control, that in the end the old regime is cast out and a new form of government instituted.

The French Revolution was no different. A bunch of hooligans mindlessly rioting and destroying things over some minor matter they should have just let go. But in the end, the king was dead, him and his wife's heads were cut off and spat upon.

This round the government got the upper hand. The people in the UK are not happy with how things are going. The revolution is not going to be this month, but it has started this month. The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.

The French Revolution was no different.

Except for the charismatic, well spoken Robespierre running the Terror as a matter of centrally-planned policy, and systematically purging his political competition within the Revolution by means that would have impressed Stalin and Mao.

The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.

This reads like a Robespierre speech praising both the inevitability and the righteousness of the Revolution. Pray that you are wrong, because that sort of revolution leave the nation a smoking ruin.

Pointing out it's well nigh inevitable at this point due to systematic abuse of and disregard for human rights isn't saying that it is righteous or that the outcome will be good. Most revolutions lead to bad outcomes not good, but most revolutions are also inevitable. The British ubersurveillance police state experiment has gone too far and there are no signs of abating. This is not the only issue, there are others. It's pretty unlikely reform will come in time. It's not a wild pronouncement to note that the revolution has begun, it's just an observation of what is going on.

The day the Rodney King verdict was announced I took part in one of hundreds of peaceful protest marches, which were interrupted by fascist police who tried to round up participants for legally exercising their right to protest. The next day I had to make a delivery in LA and saw the riots. I got out of there as soon as I realized what was going on but I saw enough to know the city was being burned to the ground by a populace outraged over injustice, not a thugs looking for free TVs. I never said "Wow this sucks, look at those undisciplined animals rioting". Instead I said, "Wow, this sucks, look at what happens if you don't value justice in a society."

The sentence of 4 years in prison of this kid for posting on Facebook some nonsense he deleted a couple hours later inviting people to join him at McDonalds for a riot meetup that never happened is not justice. Nor is throwing a mother in prison because her flatmate brought home some looted clothes and she accepted a pair of shorts. That is the reign of terror. It is not justice, it is fascism and extremism at its worst. The people calling for violent and extreme punishment of the protestors are insane and their actions bring the destruction of their failed nation that much closer.

How do you know the they were rioting for the sake of looting and causing damage and not as protest?

Harsh sentences like these will only serve to convince a large segment of the population that the system is unjust (and perhaps even that the riots were therefore a "good thing" (fight the system, etc, etc)).

These people weren't fighting any 'system' or for any cause. They plainly saw an opportunity to steal, vandalise and ruin the lives of many hard-working, law-abiding citizens, under the so called 'protection' of the mob.

Hopefully this hard justice will serve as a warning that this simply will not be tolerated in our civil society. If anything, it actually emphasises how lenient the court system normally is, and I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.

Hopefully this hard justice will serve as a warning that this simply will not be tolerated in our civil society.

That warning is better served by preceding a potential riot with a few decades of prompt, strict, and small punishments for failures of civility. A person who knows that there will be consequences does not participate in a riot. Or at least it would be a polite English riot with the mob leaders passing out cucumber sandwiches.

... I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.

Alas, punishing an impromptu mob for the arson of its most destructive member does not un-burn-down a buildingful of shops, and the thrill of seeing the mob railroaded might even encourage a career-criminal arsonist who knew to take precautions against being identified.

Hyperbole much?

Where was the general population when this was going on? Sitting at home watching TV. This is a big problem with society.

> Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree

That's why a neutral judge does the judging in a trial and not the biased victims.

How many of those small businessmen shook their heads but did nothing over happy slappers and countless other creeping failures of the rule of law? Civilizations don't fall because the barbarians get strong but because the middle class stops defending civility. If the yeomanry do not guard their liberty, they abdicate it.

I'll stop writing here. If I go on I will start quoting The Boondock Saints and lose all credibility.

Couldn't agree more - in fact a group actually did stand up to them:

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/08/09/turkish-shopkeepers-s...

It's only recently in the UK that the law now favours the right to defend yourself and your property; before there was a perception of criminals having more rights having broken into your home than you ever did.

Has there been a change to the law? Can you give a reference please. I thought UK law has always allowed reasonable force to be used in defending your property..

This is just the tip of the ice berg; the most disparate crime/punishment of many.

Don't get me wrong; I've always been in favour of effective punishment - but this is totally the wrong time for our justice system to "go spare".

Firm but fair is important in situations like this. I approve of punishing these two, who did something idiotic with the potential for great harm. A slap on the wrists, or a small fine maybe.

The problem is fear. Certain parts of our population are scared to he'll by these riots (ironically, most have probably not been within 10 miles if a riot...) fed by the media and a government trying to save their image. (I mean, they've switched from criticising the police for being heavy handed during the G20 protest to criticising them for being too standoffish! And the media are lapping it up)

I've been as disapointed in our justice system this week as I have been with the rioters.

Well, I can understand why they critic the police strategy, this would never get this out of control in most countries.

Do courts in the UK have any flexibility in sentencing? Do defendants generally know what evidence the prosecution has against them?

If so, then I'd expect guilty pleas to often be sensible. If you know you are guilty, and you know that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to make it virtually certain you'll be convicted, why not plead guilty and hope that sways the court to leniency?

I'd expect a court to be more lenient with a defendant who admits his guilt and shows remorse for the crime than one who insists he is not guilty when he clearly is and clearly knows that he's going to be found guilty.

There's definitely leniency. Depending on the case, I believe the standard tariff reduction for a sufficiently early Guilty plea is 1/3.

What is the motivation for requiring a plea of not guilty before going to trial, apart from saving the court time and money? Why not default to a trial in all cases, allow the defendant to stop the trial by pleading guilty, but ensure that not pleading guilty is never seen as being unremorseful?

They both plead guilty - what exactly were their lawyers supposed to do?

Their lawyers were supposed to be there beforehand, lawyering. Advising not to talk to the police, getting bail, doing the discovery investigation, establishing chain of custody of evidence, examining witnesses under the oath of perjury, establishing motivation and intent, establishing mental competence at time of offense, comparing the complaint to precedent, determining if the complaint corresponds to an actual law, excluding inadmissible evidence, getting a jury trial, changing the jury trial to a less hostile venue, and so forth.

Any lawyer with a pulse would have done at least one of these things, but not a single one appears to have been done. Therefore their legal counsel was probably almost certainly impeded in some way. The judge appears to accept this impediment without blushing, so the bad counsel was probably planned. In other words, they are being railroaded.

I suspect the judge was sick and tired of 20 years of handing out wrist slaps at the behest of Parliament and their politically correct ministries and took the opportunity to land a few punches while the gloves are off. In other words, it is a continuation of the riots by other means.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com