The Sentencing Council recently raised hackles over its apparent proposals that all except middle-aged, middle-class white Englishmen should have a pre-sentence report made before they are put on probation. In theory, very good, but when I practised I found that those the council now thinks need special attention received this without the obligation imposed on the court.
Women in particular were often regarded as victims. By the way, was this proposed report to be required for returning customers? And how was the court to know that a defendant was gay?
Several clients didn’t want reports. Long-term re-education would have been better. I sent a clerk down to Feltham to see a young alleged offender. She came back with the request that I write him a letter saying he was charged with stealing a Rolls-Royce. ‘But he knows perfectly well with what he was charged,’ I said.
‘Yes, but he’s lost his charge sheet and the other boys don’t believe him.’
A couple of my clients who today would certainly qualify for pre-sentence reports were a pair of 18-year-olds (one a Scot). They were both homeless glue sniffers and repeat offenders who had graduated from simple theft to armed robbery. They were captured after they had fallen asleep in a disused fire station when they were surrounded in a major police operation.
They were duly sentenced at the Old Bailey to eight or nine years. When counsel and I went to the cells to talk about an appeal, the Scot asked who was on the bench.
‘Mr Justice Melford Stevenson,’ I said. ‘Forget the appeal,’ he replied. ‘Why?’ ‘Because we can tell our mates we wiz potted by Melford.’
The council might in time think of the old civil law maxim before requiring reports: one dog, one bite. One client told me he had only one conviction but when I looked at what was then his ‘609’, it was littered with conditional discharges and probation.
‘Yes,’ he said, proudly. ‘But I’ve only been sent down once.’
James Morton is a writer and former criminal defence solicitor
No comments yet