header-logo header-logo

04 July 2019
Issue: 7847 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Arsonists, vandals & firebugs

Judges will need to take account of the full impact of the crime when sentencing arsonists, under guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

The guidelines, issued this week to all courts in England and Wales and due to take effect on 1 October, are the first to be given for arson and criminal damage cases. Currently, there are none available for the Crown Court and only limited guidance for magistrates on these types of cases.

Sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the judge or magistrate believes it is not in the interests of justice to do so.

The type of property damaged as well as level of damage caused will affect sentencing, for example, more severe penalties will be imposed for vandalism on national heritage assets such as listed buildings and historic objects. Other factors include the social or economic impact where public amenities are damaged, such as a train station, and the effect on communities when emergency services or resources are diverted to deal with firebugs.

In order to assess culpability, judges and magistrates will be able to request reports into whether the offence is linked to a mental disorder or learning disability. In 2017, about 20 offenders (roughly 5%) sentenced for arson had a mental health order attached to their sentence.

Sentencing Council member Judge Sarah Munro QC said the guidelines ‘ensure that courts can consider all the consequences of arson and criminal damage offences, from a treasured family photo being destroyed to someone nearly losing their life and home in a calculated and vengeful arson attack’.

Justice Minister Robert Buckland said: ‘Beyond the financial cost to victims, arson and criminal damage are serious offences which can risk lives and leave lasting psychological harm. So it is right that courts have clear and consistent guidance when sentencing offenders to ensure punishments properly fit the crime.’

Issue: 7847 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll