A tale of two sentences

Posted on 23 August 2011 - 08:13pm
Last updated on 23 August 2011 - 09:42pm

R. Nadeswaran

FOR five days early this month, several parts of London were under siege. Rioters, arsonists and thieves had a field day as they ran around uncontrolled. Thanks to the thousands of TV cameras dotted around the streets of London, many have been identified, arrested and convicted.
Police meticulously went through more than 20,000 hours of CCTV recordings and captured the images of the culprits. These images have appeared on websites and newspapers like a “rogues gallery” and more than 1,900 were arrested with 1,200 having been dealt with. But the severity of the sentence has come under scrutiny and various groups have accused the English courts as “acting out of character”.
Comparisons are being drawn. David Otto who stole two T-shirts worth £60 pleaded guilty and with no previous convictions, was sentenced to a day in custody. Nicholas Robinson admitted taking a box of water from a supermarket and got six months’ jail although he too had no previous convictions.
An analysis of 1,000 rioting cases by the Guardian newspaper showed that 70% of accused persons have been remanded to await trial. Fifty-six of 80 defendants were sentenced by magistrates and handed immediate prison sentences. An exceptional figure considering that bail is usually allowed for minor offences like theft. Half of those jailed for handling stolen goods or theft received an average of 5.1 months which the analysis showed is 25% longer than the average sentence of 4.1 months for such crimes last year.
The Howard League for Penal Reform argues that the rush to send a message out was leading to “some very bad sentences which will be overturned on appeal.” Because offenders are provided free advice and defence under the Legal Aid system, the majority are expected to appeal.
This brings us to home when last week the High Court enhanced a customs officer’s jail sentence for corruption from two weeks to four years. Justice Datuk David Wong Dak Wah had the perfect riposte: if you do the crime, you do the time. It perhaps sends out the message that corruption will not be tolerated, but in other instances when the amounts were even bigger, the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the offence or the intolerance against such unacceptable practices.
Meting out punishment is not exactly science – there are no fixed formulae and courts often take into account several factors. Worse is trying to compare and forming conclusions which sometimes may not be perfect or truthful.
In the UK, there are sentencing guidelines and judges are often reminded that these are not “tramlines” and need not be followed to the letter. Judges can depart when the “interests of justice” require it and it is at the absolute discretion of the man sitting at the bench. The cases of Otto and Robinson, dealt by two different magistrates attest to this. Because of the huge outcry over the behaviour of the offenders, judges seem to have taken a rather different view, making little allowance for mitigation and other related factors.
Then again, we find the same in our system. A mother who steals a tin of powdered milk to feed her starving baby is sent down for six months while the millionaires who manipulate the stock market (to make a quick kill) get away with a fine without having to have the stigma of “jail bird” stuck on them. The line that is often quoted, sometimes with laces of sarcasm or humour, depending on whose view it is: you can stay out of jail with money.
Law journals in Malaysia are full of reports of discrepancies in sentencing and certain sectors of the community argue that capacious fines for those who already made millions at the expense of the law is a small price to pay for their follies, especially white collar criminals.
Every right thinking Malaysian will concur with the views of Justice Wong that the offender has to be pay for his transgressions. But talking with a British journalist, one gets the impression that such a “dual punishment system” is not unique to Malaysia. She gave me examples in her backyard. Members of Parliament, she argued, who had fiddled their expenses to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds got six months and got out in four because of “good behaviour”.
“How could anyone justify sending to jail an 18-year-old girl who picked up a bottle of Lucozade in a shop which had already been looted by the mob?” she asked. “Because the judiciary is influenced by an ‘angry Britain’, they have broken the tramlines.”
Has anyone been angered by the hefty fines with no custodial terms? Will an “angry Malaysia” convince our judiciary that those who steal from the people should be treated in the same manner without mercy and spend time in the slammer for the maximum period possible?
R. Nadeswaran says the courts should not show mercy to law-breakers unless there are extenuating circumstances. He is the theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com