Faster Justice Does Not Have To Be Worse

The very public dispute between Eoin McLennan-Murray, of the Prison Governors' Association, and John Thornhill, of the Magistrates' Association, betrays the sectional interests of both sides.









John Thornhill of the Magistrates Association denied the judiciary were politically pressured.

Mr Thornhill maintains that magistrates' courts have done a stellar job in the wake of the riots and suggests lessons for the future. Mr McLennan-Murray, whose members have to cope with the consequences of the courts' decisions, says magistrates have indulged in a sentencing "feeding frenzy", pandering to popular emotion.

As a newspaper, we share Mr McLennan-Murray's qualms about the speed with which justice is being dispensed and the rate of imprisonment. We also ask whether custodial sentences are the best way of punishing rioters and, indeed, whether magistrates are on top form at, say, 2am. Justice Ministry figures show that almost 70 per cent of those brought to courts since the riots have been given jail sentences or remanded in custody; the figure for 2010 was 10 per cent. This is a big difference, even if some harsher sentences are already being reversed on appeal.

But Mr Thornhill has a point that should not be ignored, just because other questions are raised. In three weeks, magistrates have heard several thousand cases, by dint of working longer hours and requiring greater efficiency from all concerned. Yes, there have been problems – missing papers, poorly briefed lawyers and absent probation officers – but these, regrettably, are not unusual.

Against that, there have also been benefits in accelerating the process: events were still fresh in everyone's memory and the link between offence and court, often blurred by delay, was clear. Here, Mr Thornhill is right. Extraordinary circumstances have shown how the ordinary could be radically improved.

Riots: Coalition Tensions Over Benefits Plan

The flames of the riots have subsided, but the political fall-out has only just begun.











One proposal could lead to people losing benefits if they are convicted.

The Government's most immediate concern is what to do with the hundreds of people who have been arrested over the disturbances.

Many people feel the punishments being dished out are merely a slap on the wrist.

Others are concerned about the many young offenders who have been swept up into criminality.

Today both David Cameron and Ed Miliband made speeches trying to unpick the causes of the riots and prescribe their own remedies.

The Prime Minister must walk the political tightrope of reacting decisively and swiftly to the riots, without a knee-jerk response.











David Cameron says he 'fully supports' Iain Duncan Smith.

Ed Miliband has already accused Mr Cameron of "knee-jerk gimmicks".

But the truth is that neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the opposition have come up with much in the way of concrete policies.

David Cameron’s speech seemed an exercise in re-emphasising what the Coalition is already doing - such as welfare reform, free schools and the British Bill of Rights.

One source close to the Prime Minister confirmed to me that today was more about "re-energising" and "reminding ministers of our priorities" rather than outlining a specific policy reaction.

Meanwhile Ed Miliband bemoaned the "unequal society" and "gross irresponsibility" but refused to nail his colours to the mast of any particular policy initiative - simply calling for a national inquiry.

One new policy is, however, under discussion and it is likely to be extremely controversial.











Lib Dem Simon Hughes says he fears 'knee-jerk' responses.

Work and Pension Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has said the Government is currently looking at removing benefits from people involved in the riots.

When asked about the idea during the question and answer session, the Prime Minister would only say that Mr Duncan Smith had his "total support".

Housing Minister Grant Shapps has already said that he is actively encouraging councils to use their right to evict council house tenants if they have been involved in criminal activity.

But if this is widened to include all benefits, there could be a rocky road ahead for the Coalition.

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes has cautioned against a "knee-jerk" response, and the party's welfare spokeswoman Jenny Willott has said she is "very worried" by the proposal.

And while Nick Clegg is understood to be comfortable with the idea of rioters losing their council homes, it is unclear whether he would be happy if they lost other benefits too.