MP is angry over ‘soft touch’ Bradford court (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email
MP is angry over ‘soft touch’ Bradford court
9:00am Monday 1st October 2012 in News By Steve Wright, Crime Reporter
Criminals found guilty of serious crimes are less likely to be sent to prison in Bradford than most areas of the country, an MP claims.
An investigation by Shipley MP Philip Davies has revealed apparent disparities in sentencing in the country’s 76 crown courts. He also found differences in the types of crime for which offenders were sent to prison.
Dorchester, Swindon and Salisbury courts sent all people found guilty of robbery to prison, while in Bradford 77.62 per cent of criminals were jailed in 2010, the latest available figures.
In Aylesbury, 94.12 per cent of sexual offenders were jailed, compared to 67.5 per cent in Bradford.
Police representatives said offenders who walked away eroded public confidence and meant criminals won. Mr Davies said: “I am bitterly disappointed, as I am sure most of my constituents will be, that the Crown Court in Bradford seems to be one of the softest in the country in dealing with serious criminals.”
Senior judges at Bradford were keen to discuss sentencing policy, but were not allowed to by the Judicial Office in London. But figures from the Attorney General’s Office showed that in 2011 only three cases were referred from Bradford under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, of which two resulted in increased sentences.
A Bradford defence barrister, who has worked at the crown court for more than two decades, condemned the interpretation of the figures. The barrister, who did not want to be identified, said: “In my experience there are no judges who sit in Bradford who might be described as soft touches.
“Without exception, they apply the legal guidelines that are given to them by the Sentencing Guidelines Council - a body set up by the Government – and exercise judgement in a fair way that takes into consideration both the victim and the defendant.”
Andrew Tempest-Mitchell, West Yorkshire Police Federation chairman, said officers were ‘disappointed’ when offenders appear to walk away without any consequence for their behaviour.
Comments(12)
JAtkinson
says...
11:08am Mon 1 Oct 12
The one-size-fits-all approach to prisons is hampering all of the above. Many criminals see prison as time for a rest from hugely hectic home lives or as an occupational hazard, like Fletcher in Porridge. Others go in as barely criminals but it is a crime university and they come out much better criminals than before.
There needs to be a real overhaul of how we keep people, particularly young men, returning again and again to prison.
Prison keeps some people away from committing crime for a few months but doesn't do as much as it could in keeping them away from crime in the long term.
BRADFORD ANGEL
says...
11:09am Mon 1 Oct 12
Albion.
says...
11:12am Mon 1 Oct 12
BRADFORD ANGEL wrote:That wasn't in 2010.
I Dont know where mr Davies got his figures from in Bradford riots 5 year sentences were handed out for throwing stones.
A Casual Observer
says...
11:40am Mon 1 Oct 12
Steampig
says...
12:00pm Mon 1 Oct 12
Prison does not work" and pointing to the fact that may people will come out and go on to re-offend is that most of the people that get sent to prison are not 1st tiime offenders. they have usually gone through the various non custodial sentences prior to recieving a prison sentence. It is also clear that "proffessional Criminals" will continue to offend regardless, but at least by locking them up it gives the rest of the population some rest bite from them. Sentences are far too often
very lenient, and for 1 reason. COST. it costs a lot to lock some body up. and it costs a lot more to lock some body up for a long time. but probation orders are a waste of time. you give a burglar probation he is at liberty to re-offend at will. lock him up and he won't be burgling any body for the duarion of his sentence.
BertSanders
says...
12:22pm Mon 1 Oct 12
A Casual Observer wrote:You will have to behave very badly and then you might get a bed. Get a job - any job - and start your recovery from there. You do not appear one of the un employable - perhaps benefits are too high. It seems all this tough talk from the Benefits Agency is'nt working.
For many Prison is fast becoming an option. With people being forced into slave labour or have State Benefits cut, and with cuts to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, you would be better off in Prison. At least you have a roof over your head, get fed, and aren't constantly being badgered to apply for hopeless Minimum Wage jobs. Reserve me a bed!
The Hoffster
says...
1:20pm Mon 1 Oct 12
BRADFORD ANGEL wrote:I could never understand how that kind of sentence was justified.
I Dont know where mr Davies got his figures from in Bradford riots 5 year sentences were handed out for throwing stones.
.
Child abusers get less than that.
.
I guess this is what happens when you put certain judges in positions of authority. They haven't a clue about what they're doing.
.
Idiots.
Mik_e
says...
1:43pm Mon 1 Oct 12
johnhem
says...
5:05pm Mon 1 Oct 12
The Hoffster wrote:yes, child abusers should get more than that, though in my opinion those sentences were justified. you don't get 5 years for slinging stones in a lake, you get 5 years for aiming them at the police, or firemen/ambulancmen and other people in authority. they were'nt stone throwers they were RIOTERS. thats why they got 5 years. not often i say this, but the judges actually got something right for once.
BRADFORD ANGEL wrote:I could never understand how that kind of sentence was justified.
I Dont know where mr Davies got his figures from in Bradford riots 5 year sentences were handed out for throwing stones.
.
Child abusers get less than that.
.
I guess this is what happens when you put certain judges in positions of authority. They haven't a clue about what they're doing.
.
Idiots.
The Hoffster
says...
9:41pm Mon 1 Oct 12
johnhem wrote:What about those who physically assault police officers? - they always seem to get about 2 or years max.
The Hoffster wrote:yes, child abusers should get more than that, though in my opinion those sentences were justified. you don't get 5 years for slinging stones in a lake, you get 5 years for aiming them at the police, or firemen/ambulancmen and other people in authority. they were'nt stone throwers they were RIOTERS. thats why they got 5 years. not often i say this, but the judges actually got something right for once.
BRADFORD ANGEL wrote:I could never understand how that kind of sentence was justified.
I Dont know where mr Davies got his figures from in Bradford riots 5 year sentences were handed out for throwing stones.
.
Child abusers get less than that.
.
I guess this is what happens when you put certain judges in positions of authority. They haven't a clue about what they're doing.
.
Idiots.
.
What's the difference between throwing stones at riot police (with all their protective gear) and that of a normal police officer, walking around, unprotected, and then becomes a victim of GBH?
.
Why does a criminal involved in the latter get less than one who throws a stone at a well-protected riot officer?
Get back to work
says...
11:58pm Mon 1 Oct 12
A Casual Observer wrote:I wish they would reserve you a bed , you wouldnt last a day !!
For many Prison is fast becoming an option. With people being forced into slave labour or have State Benefits cut, and with cuts to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, you would be better off in Prison. At least you have a roof over your head, get fed, and aren't constantly being badgered to apply for hopeless Minimum Wage jobs. Reserve me a bed!
You`ll never be the man your mother was
You`d be on suicide watch quicker than you could scratch on at at the job centre..
Albion. says...
11:02am Mon 1 Oct 12