Icons demand to see AG
They want to discuss ‘one of the greatest injustices… in modern history’
Some 1200 self-styled cultural icons have written to the attorney general, Lord Hermer KC, “sincerely and with love for all humanity”, seeking an urgent public meeting to discuss the prison sentences passed last week on a group of environmental protestors.
Being cultural icons, they may be unaware that the attorney general’s role in sentencing is limited to referring sentences to the Court of Appeal that the law officers believe are unduly lenient. But you might have thought that some of the lawyers who signed the open letter, which is reported in today’s Times, would have explained that it’s not the attorney’s job to get involved — at this stage in the criminal justice process — in sentences that are said to be too high.
No doubt the five protestors will seek to appeal against their sentences and perhaps also their convictions. As I said in the introduction to a podcast I published at the beginning of last week, I would expect the lady chief justice, Baroness Carr, to preside over the hearing.
The attorney general “superintends” the Crown Prosecution Service. If the Court of Appeal needs help from prosecutors on past sentencing practice in comparable cases, it will say so.
Hermer knows it would be entirely improper for him to do anything that might be seen as interfering with the appeal process or the independence of the courts. I’m sure that’s what he’ll tell the icons.
Update 9 October: The Times reports today that Hermer wrote to the campaigners on 6 October. He rejected a public meeting to discuss these cases because they were, or could possibly be, subject to appeal.
Having reminded myself of the position, I see that the wording is “without lawful excuse”, but also that -unless this has now also been swept away- the test is a subjective one. In any event I very much remain of the camp that sees part of a juror ‘s role to take a broad view where a conviction would be unjust or otherwise not in the public interest. What of, for example, Clive Ponting?
Nicholas O’Brien: how very highly I value the freedom you and I have to agree to disagree. As I recall that case turned upon “lawful excuse or other reasonable cause” (I shall look it up !) and the defence advocates in that case convinced me that there were issues worthy of a jury’s deliberations. But then: I AM a bear with very little LEGAL brain.