Too NICE to push? The cost of caesarean sections in the NHS.

Has caesarean section now become safer than natural birth? If not, why is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence proposing to oblige the NHS to provide elective caesareans on request?

Hard cases, seductive solutions

After the trial, the things the jury weren’t allowed to know. In the case of Vincent Tabak, convicted of murdering Joanne Yeates, the revelation that

Computer analysts found the Dutch engineer appeared to have a fascination with pornography depicting violence towards women. In some of the films he viewed, men held women by the neck while they had sex.
Vincent Tabak and the porn searches the jury did not hear about

The immediate demand is to know how criminal procedure could mean that “[t]he jury was left ignorant of what the police believed was important evidence.” (Some people go off in…other directions)

Interesting litigation: IMDB ages and Canadian hyperlinks

Two interesting cases that are worth watching.

Riot sentencing – Appeal Judgement

The Court of Appeal has now given its (first?) judgement on “riot” cases, including on two cases dealing with the use of social media for incitement. It is, in a number of respects, a disappointing judgement, but the blame for this does not lie solely at the feet of the Court.

The cases before the court were serious. They involved incitement, burglary, or handling stolen property. The stolen property involved was of significant value. Several of the offenders had prior criminal records, including convictions for robbery and violent crime. In that context, it’s unsurprising that the Court upheld the sentences in the burglary cases, and made only modest reductions in the sentencings in the handling cases.

It is disappointing that the Court failed to reduce the sentences in the incitement cases (the “Facebook” cases, involving the use of Facebook to incite violent disorder). The 4 year sentences imposed, even allowing for the deterrent effect repeatedly emphasised, are substantially higher than those the Court of Appeal imposed or upheld on individuals who actually committed violent disorder. That said, both cases involved individuals who created Facebook events (in one case, inviting 400 people), and in both cases other people had indicated they would attend (9 in one, and 47 in the other).

Crucially, none of these cases allowed the Court a substantive opportunity to consider whether the custody threshold (s.152(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) was passed merely as a result of these offences being committed during widespread violent disorder/riot. In most of them, it was accepted that it had been, and in only one (Hassan Koyuncu) does it appear that it was specifically argued that it had not been. That case involved the ransacking of a Comet store; the defendant fled the scene, was chased by police, and arrested in possesion of a variety of electrical goods.

The key question posed by the Nicholas Robinson case – does a context of violent disorder cause otherwise trivial offences to pass the custody threshold? – has not been answered or even considered. Nor does the present guideline substantively do any more than confirm that a context of violent disorder can be an aggravating factor – not, as far as I can see, ever questioned.

It must be hoped that the Sentencing Council will shortly do what they should have done some years ago, and write a sentencing guideline for widespread violent disorder. Based on past experience, they have about three years before the next time it will be wanted.

Nicholas Robinson; Burglary; 6 months: An appropriate sentence?

As the first cases make their way through to sentencing, one case has attracted much comment: 23 year old Nicholas Robinson, an Electrical Engineering student, who was sentenced to six months in prison for stealing bottles of water worth £3.50 from a branch of Lidl in Brixton.

I’ve already made clear my views on prison sentences of this length for non-violent offenders involved in the riots, so I want to look instead at whether the sentence was appropriate under the current sentencing framework.

The American Dream and the Promise of Britain, Ed Miliband’s culture of entitlement.

An odd turn of phrase caught my attention in the Commons’ yesterday. Responding to the Prime Minister’s statement, Ed Miliband said:

Of course, as we look at the solutions we need, questions of hope and aspiration are relevant—the provision of opportunities to get on in life that do not involve illegality and wrongdoing. When we talk about responsibility, we must not forget ours, not to the tiny minority who did the violence, but to the vast majority of law-abiding young people. They are a generation—this is not about any one Government—worried about their prospects and we cannot afford to fail them. We cannot afford to have the next generation believe that they are going to do worse than the last. They should be able to do better. That is the promise of Britain that they have a right to expect.
House of Commons Hansard; 11 Aug 2011 at Column 1053
(Emphasis added)

What struck me was the implicit contrast of the “Promise of Britain” with the American Dream.

Engage in some legitimate protest: support PIAS’ record labels

In aftermath of the SonyDADC fire and the destruction of PIAS’s stock, here’s an opportunity to engage in some legitimate protest. Put your money where your mouth is, and support the independent record labels affected.

Voters: “Strip rioters of benefits!” Politicians: “Sure. See you at the 2031 riots?”

As I write this, 75,263 people have signed this e-petition:

Convicted London rioters should loose (sic) all benefits.

Any persons convicted of criminal acts during the current London riots should have all financial benefits removed. No tax payer should have to contribute to those who have destroyed property, stolen from their community and shown a disregard for the country that provides for them.

This e-petition was set up early yesterday. It has been gathering signatures at a rate of more than 3,000 an hour, long since overtaking Paul Staines’ petition to “Restore Capital Punishment” (6 days old; currently 11,387 signatures), Martin Shapland’s opposing “Petition to retain the ban on Capital Punishment” (6 days old; currently 20,027 signatures), and Robert Halfon MP’s “CHEAPER PETROL AND DIESEL” (5 days old; currently 24,189 signatures). These professional politicos have been left standing.

At the current rate (c.5k/hour), more than 100,000 people will have signed by later this evening, triggering consideration of the petition by the House of Commons’ Backbench Business Committee. The first test of Parliament’s commitment to listen to the public will not be capital punishment, but a demand to punish those responsible for the violence and destruction of the past four nights.

Recommended riot reading – Blogs from Adam Wagner and ObiterJ; ht to Marcus Flavin

If you want to read beyond my guest post for Dale Street Blues (liability for rioting and the Riot Act), here are two posts that explore the legal issues around riot in more depth:

Elsewhere on the web: Dale Street Blues Guest Post

I’ve written a post for Dale Street Blues, talking about the Riot Act and the rules on liability for riot damage.