Mixed reaction as Court of Appeal takes tough line on rioters

There has been a mixed reaction to the Court of Appeal's long-awaited judgment on ten appeals against sentences imposed after August's riots.

The Court of Appeal rejected appeals by two men who attempted to incite a riot on Facebook and by five people convicted of burglary, though it reduced the terms of three others for dishonest handling.

Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said: 'All members of my profession are also citizens of our community and everyone acknowledges that this behaviour was totally unacceptable.

'There are times when the law has to demonstrate that it is capable of doing its job, and this is what the Court of Appeal has done.'

Warren added that he could not see how it could be argued that there was any other course for a civilised society to take.

However, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said it was 'difficult to understand why the Court of Appeal upheld exceptionally heavy sentences which will blight the lives of young men, some of whom appear to have acted stupidly rather than violently'.

She went on: 'No one could condone the damage and distress caused by the riots but it is a matter of regret that the Court of Appeal did not choose to open the way to proportionate sentences that would have given scope to make amends to victims and reflect public support for restorative justice.'

Delivering sentence on behalf of the court in R v Blackshaw and others [2011] EWCA Crim 2312, the Lord Chief Justice said the context of the riots 'hugely aggravates the seriousness of each individual offence'.

He said the court endorsed the observations of Judge Gilbart QC, the Recorder of Manchester, that the nature of the riots took the offences 'completely outside the usual context of criminality' and he agreed with Judge Gilbart that they were 'altogether different' from what happened in Bradford in 2001 (see solicitorsjournal.com, 17 August 2011).

However, Lord Judge said it was 'inappropriate for Crown Court judges to issue, or to appear to be issuing sentencing guidelines'.

The two Facebook appeals were dismissed, along with five others for burglary. The first three burglary sentences were imposed by the Recorder of Manchester, the remaining two by Wood Green and Inner London Crown Courts. Sentences in the three dishonest handling cases, all of which were reduced, were imposed by Manchester Crown Court, two of them by Judge Gilbart.

Sir John Thomas, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Lord Justice Levenson sat alongside Lord Judge.