Judges down South softer on criminals than in North

Sentences imposed in southern courts more likely to go to appeal as ‘unduly lenient’, data show

CRIMINALS in the south of England get softer treatment from judges than those in the North, according to the first analysis of sentences challenged for being “unduly lenient”.

Convicted offenders in the South are more likely to see their cases referred to the Court of Appeal because victims, members of the public or the Attorney General believe they may be too lenient.

Under the scheme, Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, can send cases to the Court of Appeal for judges to determine whether the original sentence was unduly lenient and therefore merited being increased.

Data, compiled by the Labour Party, show that in the South, 23.9 per cent of eligible cases are referred by the Attorney General compared with 18.6 per cent in the North.

In Wales, the judges are ostensibly the toughest as just 9 per cent are referred as being potentially unduly lenient, nearly a third of the rate in the south of England.

The Midlands is slightly above the North with 19.3 per cent referred.

The ex-victims’ commissioner Dame Vera Baird, a former solicitor general, suggested it could be that judges in the North were more likely to be “getting it right” and were “tougher and harder” on criminals than those in the South.

“There may be better judges in the North who get it right and who are not unduly lenient. They might be tough and hard, being northerners,” she said.

Anyone, including victims, can ask the Attorney General to consider whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. But Ms Prentis and her legal advisers will only do so if there is evidence of a serious error in the sentencing by the judge. A subjective opinion that a sentence is too lenient will not be enough. Inner London Crown Court had the highest rate of referrals for unduly lenient sentences, with half being passed by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal to be reconsidered.

Typical was the case of Thomas Mulligan, 62, who was sentenced to 18 months in jail for 21 child sex offences.

This was more than tripled to six years in jail by judges at the appeal court who agreed the sentence was unduly lenient. Alex Chalk, then the solicitor general, cited the “exhaustive” nature of his crimes and number of children affected by his abuse, which the original judge had underestimated.

Other courts in the top 10 with the highest “unduly lenient” referral rates included Winchester at 44.4 per cent, Woolwich at 41.2 per cent, Portsmouth at 36 per cent, Guildford 35.3 per cent, Bristol 47 per cent and Cambridge 31.8 per cent.

Worcester, also in the top 10 at 40 per cent, saw one drug dealer’s original sentence of two years nine months for

‘There may be judges in the North who get it right. They might be tough and hard, being northerners’

dealing heroin and cocaine increased to six years three months. Michael Tomlinson, the Solicitor General, said it sent a clear message that “money made from dealing drugs will never be worth the punishment”.

At the other end of the scale, some courts had none of their eligible cases referred to the Court of Appeal for being unduly lenient. Top of the table – and with ostensibly some of the toughest judges in the country – was Hull where none of the 27 eligible cases was referred.

Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, said the huge variation was “turning the public’s last hope of justice into a postcode lottery”. She added: “For the victims, families and communities who put their faith in this scheme, it is unacceptable that their chances of success are being affected by where in the country they live.”