header-logo header-logo

Arsonists, vandals & firebugs

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll