Sorry you feel that my post was some sort of apology Aron but it was made in response to JBR's post about how offenders are sentenced.
The point I was making was that, in years gone by, Magistrates and Judges would have a large amount of leeway in sentencing. They no longer have that as the sentencing guidelines now take the form of a statutory requirement. This means that Magistrates and Judges now MUST follow the guidance when sentencing.
What that amounts to is that a Magistrate or Judge may feel that the offender deserves a more severe sentence but he/she is precluded from handing that down due to the guidelines. Remember that all sentences must be recorded alongside the full reasons for that sentence.
Take it from me that my comments in respect of The Judiciary being concerned about such restrictions [especially over the use of non-custodial sentences] is based on personal knowledge and those concerns have been well documented over the years.
I suspect that this was a lay bench in The Magistrates Court - not a Judge (albeit some District Judges sitting as a Magistrate do preside at some Magistrates Courts) As the name suggests, these are lay persons who are not paid to sit as such (save for some expenses) Certainly not 'Judges on £100-£200K')
Taking this case in point... On reading about the case, I (and many others) would have deemed it deserved a custodial sentence. Perhaps the lay bench did too. However, in the absence of 'serious injury', this would have put the case in a Category 3 according to the sentencing guidelines. Those same guidelines put the starting point for a Category 3 as a medium range community order and the entire range of punishments between a Band A fine and a high level community order.
Therefore, even if the Magistrates wanted to impose a custodial sentence, it is not within the range stipulated by the statutory guidelines so they couldn't.
Compare this with a Category 2 ABH (serious injury present) where the starting point is 26 weeks custody (6 months)
The entire point here is that there is more to sentencing than meets the eye and, without knowing such detail, it is all to easy to be angered by what appear to be lenient sentences.
I do take on board your points Aron and I agree that they ARE fully accountable BUT I would temper that with the fact that they can only be accountable for what the statutory guidance allows them to do. It is HM government who are ultimately accountable for issuing that guidance.
