5 ms·

"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

"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.

andyking 15y ago
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_mum-jailed-for-six-months-for-wearing-pair-of-looted-shorts- 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.
- shazamjad 15y ago
  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.
  - leon_ 15y ago
    > 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.
  - abstractbill 15y ago
    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)).
    - PhilRae 15y ago
ErrantX 15y ago
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.
- iaskwhy 15y ago
  Well, I can understand why they critic the police strategy, this would never get this out of control in most countries.
tzs 15y ago
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.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  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?
- estel 15y ago
  There's definitely leniency. Depending on the case, I believe the standard tariff reduction for a sufficiently early Guilty plea is 1/3.
arethuza 15y ago
They both plead guilty - what exactly were their lawyers supposed to do?
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  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.

andyking 15y ago

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_mum-jailed-for-six-months-for-wearing-pair-of-looted-shorts- 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.

shazamjad 15y ago
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.
- leon_ 15y ago
  > 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.
- abstractbill 15y ago
  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)).
  - PhilRae 15y ago

ErrantX 15y ago

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.

iaskwhy 15y ago
Well, I can understand why they critic the police strategy, this would never get this out of control in most countries.

tzs 15y ago

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.

nitrogen 15y ago
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?
estel 15y ago
There's definitely leniency. Depending on the case, I believe the standard tariff reduction for a sufficiently early Guilty plea is 1/3.

arethuza 15y ago

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

Daniel_Newby 15y ago
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.