Concurrent vs consecutive sentencing

[QuickQuack]

In most cases, when we see someone being sentenced for multiple crimes in one go, their sentences run concurrently, which frequently feels unjust as the criminal is essentially serving only a fraction of the total of all the sentences. This is the first time I can remember seeing a UK case where the defendant has been found guilty of 2 crimes, sentenced to 2 jail terms, and the sentences will run consecutively:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-5973012...

Is this a recent change in UK sentencing practice/guidelines, or has this option always been available but only reserved for the most evil and heinous of crimes?

[anonymous-user]

I've never understood this either.

It's the equivalent of a supermarket BOGOF offer; kind of like a "commit one crime, get one free" type of offer for criminals.

[Superleg48]

US Law is better in this respect as they generally always apply sentencing for multiple crimes to run consecutively. The also apply jail terms of excessive length meaning the criminal is effectively being sentenced to die in prison. We should learn from our American cousins in this respect, as too many sentences in this Country are a bloody joke.

[QuickQuack]

USA is ridiculous at the other extreme though. Absurdly long sentences for minor misdemeanours, life without parole for an inordinate number of prisoners, multiple consecutive life sentences plus additional hundred, or even thousand, plus years without parole, hundreds and even thousands of years set as minimum jail terms without parole. How do those last two even make sense?

Anyway, without getting into the rights and wrongs of sentencing lengths in UK, I'm still curious about this specific case. Is it a one off, is this a recent change, has it always been there, or has someone at the BBC confused the words concurrent and consecutive?

[agtlaw]

QuickQuack said:

Is it a one off, is this a recent change,

No. No.

[Terminator X]

11 years though so out in 5.5 ... criminal sentence for sure and another blow to "justice" imho.

TX.

[QuickQuack]

agtlaw said:

No. No.

Thank you.

This seems to happen quite rarely in the UK. Is that because we simply don't hear of all the cases which are given consecutive sentences due to a reporting or similar bias, or is it genuinely rare and this case was especially vile so attracted an unusual sentence?

[agtlaw]

QuickQuack said:

This seems to happen quite rarely in the UK. Is that because we simply don't hear ...

Completely inaccurate to describe consecutive sentences as rare. Less than 1% of all sentencing decisions are reported in the media.

[QuickQuack]

agtlaw said:

Completely inaccurate to describe consecutive sentences as rare. Less than 1% of all sentencing decisions are reported in the media.

That makes a lot more sense, thank you.

[Gecko1978]

Max Clifford got consecutive sentences

[anonymous-user]

MikeStroud said:

I've never understood this either.

It's the equivalent of a supermarket BOGOF offer; kind of like a "commit one crime, get one free" type of offer for criminals.

On a similar note, I have never understood the offer of TIC's, or 'other offences taken into consideration'.

You often see cases in local news where a burglar will be getting sentenced for 18 months or whatever, and then read "He asked for 27 similar offences to be taken into account" at which point your piss boils over as it makes you feel that they got a free pass for committing a whole heap of other crimes. Yeah, just chuck those other crimes in there and only get sentenced for one.

I appreciate the Judge will adjust the sentencing somewhat to account for the other crimes, but it will be nowhere near the amount of jail time that would be handed out if the criminal was convicted and sentenced for each of these 27 offences separately.

[PurpleTurtle]

Lord Marylebone said:

MikeStroud said:

I've never understood this either.

It's the equivalent of a supermarket BOGOF offer; kind of like a "commit one crime, get one free" type of offer for criminals.

On a similar note, I have never understood the offer of TIC's, or 'other offences taken into consideration'.

You often see cases in local news where a burglar will be getting sentenced for 18 months or whatever, and then read "He asked for 27 similar offences to be taken into account" at which point your piss boils over as it makes you feel that they got a free pass for committing a whole heap of other crimes. Yeah, just chuck those other crimes in there and only get sentenced for one.

I appreciate the Judge will adjust the sentencing somewhat to account for the other crimes, but it will be nowhere near the amount of jail time that would be handed out if the criminal was convicted and sentenced for each of these 27 offences separately.

Whilst I can understand the piss-boiling, it helps our vastly under-resourced Police forces to concentrate on solving other crimes.

I would speculate that most of the TIC crimes are things that would otherwise remain unsolved ad infinitum, say in the case of burglary the serial burglar gets a sympathetic hearing, he/she can be seen to 'pay' for their crimes having 'been caught' for and we don't have the Daily Mail getting on the case of disillusioned officers "who have 2,000 unsolved burglaries on X patch but were this week running a Speedwatch".

It's a pragmatic approach to separating out those other crimes which can be solved, no?

[P675]

They do this because the jails are full and it's soo expensive to build and run a new one.