The disturbingly low price of human life
Nigel Williams, 8 May 2014
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Lewis Gill’s sentence, handed down at Salisbury Crown Court, was not unduly lenient. The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, who demanded the review, has little choice but to accept the decision, although social media contain plenty of expressions of disagreement.
Obviously, the public has had less chance to examine the evidence and consider the facts than the courts. That is why it is usually a reasonable policy to trust the courts to apply sentencing guidelines equitably. Yet there are aspects of this case that raise questions. Trust in the courts is valuable and important. If it is to be maintained, then the public needs more explanation of how such an apparently serious crime can merit only a moderately severe sentence.
Gill pleaded guilty to manslaughter. That at least saved the victim’s family from the further distress of a lengthy trial. There is also no suggestion the attack was pre-meditated, so counts as manslaughter rather than murder. He also expressed remorse. These are factors that sentencers are expected to consider. If remorse is genuine, then a great deal of the rehabilitative work of the criminal justice system is done already. An offender motivated to make amends for their past wrong is more use out of prison than inside, provided that remorse is genuine. Whether it is, the courts are better placed than the public to decide.
Some evidence is still available to the public. Where the court’s judgement diverges from public opinion, it shows a need to make more explanation publicly available. CCTV footage shows Gill throwing a punch, knocking his victim into the road, and walking off leaving him there. In the face of that evidence, pleading not guilty was unlikely to achieve anything, yet the discount to the sentence still applies. There is also a question of remorse. A human being whose action had gone further than intended and left another lying in the road with head injuries could well feel remorse. Possible manifestations are calling an ambulance or attempting to administer first aid. The public might expect the reaction to be immediate, instead of setting in only after the full severity of the injury or the clarity of the footage ruled out any claims of self-defence. Judges and magistrates are expected to develop skills in interpreting the statements of witnesses, victims and offenders. Lewis Gill’s remorse, in conjunction with other mitigating factors, was enough to convince Judge HHJ Cutler CBE at the original trial and Lord Justice Treacy on appeal. I hope their judgements were correct.
The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling MP, has already asked the Sentencing Council to review their guidelines. The review needs to extend to all possible grounds on which homicide may be considered as manslaughter instead of murder. Gill needed neither a weapon nor a prolonged assault to end the life of his victim. The provocation, which only began in response to riding a bicycle on the pavement but included a racist remark, was directed not at Gill but at his companion. The sentencing judges also had to weigh up whether the victim’s condition with Asperger’s syndrome was an aggravating factor, and whether it mattered that Gill was serving a suspended sentence order.
David Green argues in Serious, Violent and Persistent Offenders that suspended sentences do not properly protect the public. This case, unless it can be shown to be atypical, reinforces his point. The intention of suspending a sentence is to remind an offender that more serious punishment is available unless conduct improves. It is supposed to encourage self-control before committing an offence rather than remorse after committing a more serious one.
In November 2013, a distressing incident took place in Peterborough prison. Nadine Wright was on remand, about to be sentenced to a 10 month sentence for stealing £13.94 of food and breaching other court-imposed conditions. Her lawyer told Leicester Crown Court that she had not received benefits at the time; in custody, she miscarried and was left to clean up the cell herself. A spokesman for Sodexo, who run the prison, said: “We do not recognise the version of events which have been stated recently regarding this incident.” Once again, the public is left wanting more information about how particular decisions were taken.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that an outside commentator is inevitably ignorant of most of the facts and details of either case. Nevertheless, if in a consistent system of justice the theft of £13.94 is worth 10 months and a manslaughter is worth 4 years, it puts a disturbingly low price on human life.