Exploring the punitive surge: Crown Court sentencing practices before and after the 2011 English riots
| Author | Jose Pina-Sánchez,Julian Roberts,Carly Lightowlers |
| Date | 01 July 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895816671167 |
| Published date | 01 July 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816671167
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2017, Vol. 17(3) 319 –339
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895816671167
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Exploring the punitive surge:
Crown Court sentencing
practices before and after the
2011 English riots
Jose Pina-Sánchez
University of Leeds, UK
Carly Lightowlers
University of Leeds, UK
Julian Roberts
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
The English summer riots of 2011 resulted in the criminal justice system having to process
an unprecedented number of offenders in a short timeframe. This study explores sentencing
practice in the wake of the riots using the 2011 Crown Court Sentencing Survey. A multilevel
model was implemented to specify the probability of receiving a custodial sentence for offences
of commercial burglary. This model allows exploring differences in sentencing before and after
the riots. An increased probability of receiving a custodial sentence in the post-riot period was
identified. An increase in variability was also detected, changing from a state of almost perfect
consistency to one in which substantial variation was observed between courts. Custodial rates
for burglary increased to a level associated with more serious offences, thereby undermining the
principle of proportionality. This, as well as the increased dispersion between courts, challenges
other principles such as legal certainty and transparency.
Keywords
Burglary, consistency, guidelines, riots, sentencing, severity
Corresponding author:
Carly Lightowlers, Academic Fellow, School of Law, University of Leeds, Liberty Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT,
UK.
Email: C.Lightowlers@leeds.ac.uk
671167CRJ0010.1177/1748895816671167Criminology & Criminal JusticePina-Sanchez et al.
research-article2016
Article
320 Criminology & Criminal Justice 17(3)
Introduction
As is now well known, in early August 2011, riots1 broke out across England. They
started in London (Tottenham), arising from what were initially peaceful protests regard-
ing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan.2 Social disor-
der quickly spread across a number of other cities including Birmingham, Bristol,
Liverpool, Manchester and Salford. These events resulted in 3103 prosecutions brought
within the following year (Ministry of Justice, 2012b) and associated costs estimated at
around half a billion pounds, including policing, clean-up operations, damage to prop-
erty, losses to business and lost tourism revenue (see Riots Communities and Victims
Panel, 2012). Newburn (2015: 39) described the riots as the ‘biggest civil disorder in
mainland Britain in a generation’. Responding to the riots created a significant challenge
for the criminal justice system, particularly at the most visible stage of the process,
namely sentencing.
To date, there has been little research on this contested aspect of the riots, namely the
sentencing of riot-related cases. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has published aggregate
comparisons of sentencing trends for the post-riot period and a year before the riots (see
Ministry of Justice, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) and revealed an increase in sentence length.
This finding was corroborated in London by Bell et al. (2014) who found increase in
severity in sentencing practice relating to the disorder of summer 2011, and Lightowlers
and Quirk (2015) who analysed data from Greater Manchester pointing to an ‘uplift’
from arrest to sentence. Lowenstein (2016) reports a qualitative analysis of sentencing
remarks related to riot cases. Yet many sentencing-related issues remain to be explored,
including the effects of the riot-related punitive uplift on proportionality and consistency.
This article draws upon a new database to answer a series of questions arising from the
Crown Courts’ response.
The unprecedented scale and numbers remanded and sentenced to custody, as well
as the all-night court sittings, are key distinguishing features of the penal response to
these riots (Newburn, 2015). This response was driven by a political expectation that
offenders ought to be processed rapidly and receive custodial sentences (Cameron,
2011: col. 1052) in order to make an example of those involved. The Crown Prosecution
Service (2011)3 and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service responded soon after
suggesting public disturbances ought to be treated as an aggravating factor. Ultimately
the court response had particularly punitive repercussions for thousands of defendants
(McConville and Marsh, 2014). Setting a precedent, the Recorder of Manchester uni-
laterally established higher starting points and sentence ranges to be applied in the
Manchester Crown Court (Carter and Others, 2011). Although not binding, his
approach was adopted in other Crown Court locations (Alagago and Others, 2011;
Twemlow and Others, 2011). The vast number of cases being prosecuted, the political
pressure to be ‘tough’ on offenders and the ad hoc guidance generated a confusing
landscape for sentencing practice.
Ministry of Justice data on the processing of offenders brought before the courts in
relation to the public disorder of August 2011 revealed an increase in the proportion of
cases sentenced to immediate custody in the magistrates’ courts of 24 per cent compared
to similar offences in 2010, as well as an increase in the average custodial sentence
length of 13.4 months for those sentenced in relation to the riots (Ministry of Justice,
To continue reading
Request your trial