Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Surely the decision to prosecute lies firmly with the CPS, and the decision to impose such a ludicrous sentence lies with the judge? It seems quite simple to me. The CPS should take a step back and not prosecute because they can, but because it actually serves a purpose.
|
I suspect conviction rates are a performance indicator for CPS lawyers. I can see why they would go for the jugular if they thought they could.
As for the sentence, well in this case there was no judge, there was a panel of magistrates, who are in essence people who do jury service for a hobby, except with the added benefit of passing sentence after they have decided on guilt. I don't mean to do JPs a disservice (not least because an old and dear friend of mine is one) but it's not without good reason that most people accused of an 'each way' offence (one that can be tried either by a jury at Crown Court or by magistrates) opt for jury trial. On like-for-like cases, magistrates are a lot more likely to find a defendant guilty. Whether or not they are similarly gung-ho when it comes to sentencing, I can only speculate.