Expedited Justice – Riots in the UK

Dr Sophie Gallop, Senior Lecturer at NLS https://www.ntu.ac.uk/staff-profiles/law/sophie-gallop

Photo courtesy of Unsplash + Getty Images.

According to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, every person is entitled to a fair and public trial within a reasonable time. However, in recent years criminal trials in the UK have experienced significant delays, after the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the existing funding crisis and lack of available barristers in British courts. The Crown Court backlog is currently the highest ever on record, and over one quarter of cases having to wait more than one year to be heard. These delays pose a significant risk to criminal justice in the country, with longer delays meaning that victims and witnesses may withdraw from proceedings, and their recollection of relevant evidence may decline over time. These delays can also have a negative impact on the mental wellbeing of defendants and victims whilst they await trial.

Whilst many defendants have had to wait longer than ever before for their trial, in recent weeks a number of very specific defendants have found their trials fast-tracked through what would normally be a glacially slow court system.

The Fast-Tracked Defendants

After the tragic killing of three young girls in Southport in July, social media posts incorrectly speculated that the suspected killer was an asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK via boat last year, and that he was of Muslim faith. Other posts also circulated an incorrect name on various social media platforms. The following evening, violence broke out near a local mosque in Southport, where various missiles including bottles and bricks were launched at the mosque and at police. After further rallies were planned on various regional anti-immigration channels on the Telegram messaging app, disorder spread across the country, with further incidents recorded in Accrington, Aldershot, Belfast, Birmingham, Blackpool, Bristol, Darlington, Hartlepool, Hull, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Middlesborough, Nottingham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Rotherham, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Tamworth, and Weymouth. Disorder included clashes with the police, and incidents where mosques, hotels housing asylum seekers, shops, and a library were set on fire. There were widespread reports of shops being looted.

The terror of those caught up in the disorder, directly and indirectly, was clear. Asylum seekers and hotel staff described the alarm they felt having to barricade themselves into a room in a hotel in Rotherham, using fridges and furniture to create a barrier against the door after rioters surged into the building. People living nearby described their fear when those same rioters started fires and broke into their gardens after leaving the hotel.

Swift Justice

In response to the racist violence Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised that those involved would suffer ‘the full force of the law’ and be subject to ‘swift justice’. And that justice has been swift; in the month since the disorder began 1,000 people have been arrested, 474 people have been charged, and around 150 people have been sentenced for their involvement in the riots. Charges have ranged from violent disorder, assaulting an emergency worker, riot, possession of a weapon, burglary, and online offences, whilst sentences have ranged from imprisonment (the BBC says the average prison sentence so far is 2 years), to community orders and fines.

Ensuring that the trials of those who have taken part in the disorder have taken place quickly has been achieved in a number of ways.

Firstly, those who pleaded guilty were tried under a fast-track procedure, which allowed defendants to be heard far more quickly than normal. Similar fast-track procedures were introduced after the 2011 England riots following the killing of Mark Duggan by police, where magistrates’ courts were kept open 24 hours to deal with rioters. It is expected that the fast-tracking of the prosecution of those involved in the 2024 disorder will continue until all cases have been dealt with.

Secondly, contingency measures were put in place to deal with the exceptional increase in demand on the courts, which allow for additional sitting of courts during regular hours.

So, why has the government fast-tracked these trials when there is such a backlog of other criminal cases, including trials involving serious violence and rape? The primary reason was deterrence – ministers believe that the speed at which rioters have been dealt with by the courts has been a direct deterrent on preventing other riots taking place. Literature supports this, with evidence suggesting that people are more likely to take part in riots if there is a perception that rioters are ‘getting away with it’ which can include circumstances where a person is arrested and then there is a significant delay before they are eventually charged.

Consequences

Whatever the (perfectly valid) reasons for expediting the trials of rioters, there are consequences that cannot be ignored which will exacerbate the significant problems that already exist in the criminal justice system.

Firstly, the majority of trials have so far resulted in a prison sentence for those who have pleaded guilty. This is unsurprising, after the Court of Appeal confirmed after the 2011 riots that harsher sentences were appropriate for those involved in riots, as opposed to those committing the same crimes in isolation, given ‘both punishment and deterrence must follow’ in such aggravated circumstances. However, these longer prison sentences will inevitably add to the existing crisis in the prison population in the UK, where prisons are currently running at near capacity (for more on this please see Orla Slattery’s blog article linked below). There are also valid questions about whether deterrence is, in and of itself, a compelling enough reason to impose especially harsh sentences on a particular group of criminals, given that the punishment focuses solely on the behaviour of the criminals, rather than any other factors. This could raise the question of whether the harm suffered by victims of other crimes (particularly given the issues discussed below) is being treated as a less important factor in sentencing exercises than the deterrence factor is being treated in these cases.

Secondly, the prioritisation of these cases, has had a ‘knock on effect’ on other serious criminal trials, including sex offence and rape cases which will have to be postponed. The Chief Inspectorate of His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service has warned that with limited court time, limited barristers, and limited resources for the CPS, this will inevitably mean that other trials will face further delays as the justice system prioritises the trials of those involved in the rioting. These delays are on top of the existing delays defendants and victims already face in the backlogged criminal justice system. So, whilst justice has been expedited for those involved in the riots, these measures have been a double-edged sword, and for everyone else slogging their way through the Crown Courts in the UK the consequences will be that their trials are even less likely to take place within the ‘reasonable time’ demanded by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Expedited Justice – Riots in the UK

Recent Posts

Comments