HLE blogger Simon Hetherington ponders the sentence for the Croydon arsonist
On 11 April, Gordon Thompson from Croydon will appear at the Old Bailey for sentencing. After the close of the prosecution case against him, he admitted arson—specifically starting the fire that destroyed Reeves Furniture Store during last summer’s riots. As we heard many times, that store was a family business going back well over 100 years; and the area around it is known as Reeves Corner. The ongoing sense of loss expressed by the current Mr Reeves only increases the emotional pull that the story exerts.
Mr Thompson has been told to expect to receive a lengthy prison sentence, though, of course, it is not known at this stage what that sentence will be. The maximum sentence for arson is life imprisonment, but it is rare that sentences get as high as 10 years, even where there is intent to endanger life.
There is a distinction between arson with recklessness as to whether lives are endangered, and arson with intent to endanger life; we should be clear that Mr Thompson pleaded guilty to the former, while an acquittal was directed as to the latter (and on a charge of violent disorder).
In the usual run of things, this would lead to a shorter sentence, but the usual run of things was seriously derailed by the rioting last year. It was not only public order and safety, but also the administration of justice which was disturbed. Readers will recall the battery of swift prosecutions brought, and severe sentences handed down, for offences committed during the riots. We might wonder whether the sense of shock, the desire for swift retribution and the need to instil public confidence which were so prevalent then, carry the same weight now.
Possibly not, and that is to be welcomed. But to offset the return to the more usual sentencing practices there is the icon-factor...”
To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
