Soft justice for thieving drug addicts
DRUG addicts who commit burglaries should escape jail if they can show they are trying to kick their habit, say sentencing advisers.
Judges and magistrates should also be lenient towards offenders battling drink and gambling addiction, according to guidelines for courts.
Other burglars who cause “minimal loss or damage” or little harm to a victim could also walk free, while the prompt and voluntary return of stolen property as well as being desperate for money could also count in an offender’s favour.
The guidelines, issued for consultation by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, last night brought criticism that Labour was presiding over a culture of “soft justice”.
EXPRESS HYS: SHOULD ALL BURGLARS BE SENT TO PRISON?
Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve said: “Domestic burglary invariably involves a violation of a person’s home and sense of security, so people will be surprised by the suggestion that some domestic burglars should receive community sentences.
“It is a shocking indictment of our criminal justice system that the Sentencing Advisory Panel thinks drug addicts who burgle to fund their habit should avoid jail.
“We need secure drug treatment so that criminals whose offending is down to their addiction can be both punished and treated.”
The Sentencing Advisory Panel is made up of judges, lawyers, probation officers, magistrates and prosecutors and recommends sentences for England and Wales.
The suggested guidelines come days after Metropolitan Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson said all first-time burglars should be jailed for violating people’s homes.
It is a shocking indictment of our criminal justice system that the Sentencing Advisory Panel thinks drug addicts who burgle to fund their habit should avoid jail.
MORE RELATED STORIES...
EXPRESS NEWS: THE LATEST HEADLINES
EXPRESS SPORT: ALL THE NEWS IN SPORT
EXPRESS VIDEO: WATCH THE NEWS AS IT HAPPENS
Latest figures from the court service show only one in five first-time burglars were given a custodial sentence.
The consultation document stressed that serious cases of burglary deserved prison.
But where an offender was trying to tackle a drug, drink or gambling addiction, it said courts might consider ordering them into a treatment programme “in an attempt to break the cycle of addiction and offending”.
Research indicated that drug abusers were three times more likely to commit burglary than non-users.
The paper added that while addiction did not affect the seriousness of an offence, it might “influence the type of sentence if he or she is making a genuine attempt to break the cycle”.
Other mitigating factors could include the speedy and voluntary return of property and money by the offender, although the guidelines suggested that while this might lessen the sentence, it should not replace a jail term.
Similarly, where financial hardship was “exceptional and not of the offender’s own making, it may in very rare circumstances constitute offender mitigation”.
Shorter sentences could also be handed down if burglars had acted on impulse or been exploited by others.
In the most serious cases – for example where vulnerable people were the victims or suffered serious harm – the sentence for a first-time adult offender should start at two years, the panel proposed, and six months to two years for first-time young offenders for serious burglaries.
The consultation document stressed that burglary could cause great distress to victims.
Panel chairman Andrew Ashworth said: “The harm caused to victims goes well beyond the loss of any property. Anger, shock, fear and anxiety are the most common reactions.
“The Panel’s proposals closely follow a recent judgment from the Court of Appeal which stressed that sentences must reflect the trauma victims suffer when their homes are burgled.”
In February it emerged that four out of five serial burglars are escaping supposedly strict laws introduced by Labour under which those convicted of a third domestic break-in should be jailed for at least three years.
In 79 per cent of such cases they got a more lenient sentence and in 15 per cent some form of community punishment.
The proportion of convicted burglars sent to jail has fallen from 45 per cent in 1997 to below 40 per cent last year.
Calling for tougher sentences for burglars in January, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge said: “There is a long-standing belief that our homes should be our castles. Something precious is violated by burglary and those who perpetrate this crime should be punished accordingly.”
