Harsher sentences for ‘happy slap’ teenagers

Stricter sentencing for attackers who put footage online to humiliate victims

Children who film crimes and post footage on social media to “humiliate” their victims will receive tougher punishments. Judges have been told that “additional distress” caused by posting footage of crimes online must be considered an “aggravating factor” in sentencing. The proposals by the Sentencing Council come after a series of high-profile cases in which youths have filmed sex offences and crimes such as “happy slapping” assaults.

CHILDREN and teenagers who film crimes and post footage on social media to “humiliate” their victims will receive tougher punishments.

Judges have been told for the first time that “additional distress” caused by posting footage of crimes online must be considered an “aggravating factor”.

The proposals by the Sentencing Council, which advises courts on penalties, come after a series of highprofile cases in which teenagers have filmed sexual offences and other crimes.

The council also said that criminals who fail to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity will be denied a lighter sentence in a bid to spare victims the stress of a trial and save taxpayers’ money.

There has been concern about the trend of “happy slapping” among children, where a group of people assault someone in public while filming the incident.

Last year a 13-year-old boy suffered severe brain damage after he was hit twice on the head while four other pupils filmed the scene.

Meanwhile, two teenage girls were jailed for 15 years for beating to death Angela Wrightson, a vulnerable woman, in a “gratuitous” attack in her living room. The teenagers, who were aged 13 and 14 at the time, posed for pictures as they tortured her and posted them on the phone app Snapchat.

The guidance for courts sentencing offenders aged between 10 and 17 attempts to reflect the harm to victims whose ordeal is captured and circulated on the internet in a “deliberate” attempt to humiliate them.

It also says that courts should consider reducing sentences if offenders have an “unstable upbringing” and only consider jailing them as a “last resort”.

Offending by children and teenagers is “often a phase” that “passes fairly rapidly”, the guidance says. It suggests those in care or from ethnicminority backgrounds be treated more leniently.

It says that possible mitigating factors include exposure to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal behaviour within the family and experiences

‘Our guideline … has the prevention of reoffending at its heart’

of trauma or loss. Lord Justice Treacy, the chairman of the Sentencing Council, said: “Our guideline on the sentencing of children and young people has the prevention of reoffending at its heart. No one wants children who commit offences going on to become adult criminals.”

The move to offer the maximum discount of one third of a jail term only if criminals plead guilty at their first court hearing marks a significant strengthening of current guidelines, where it is available at any point up to the start of the trial.

The guidance is designed to stop offenders stringing out the process and help ease the torment for victims and witnesses.