The Secret Barrister

Help please!

It is soon time for my annual lecture on legal blogging and social media.

Can you please offer any links or examples of legal commentary on a blog or social media account which you have found especially useful.

In particular, anything which has changed your mind on something?

Never heard of them.

Blogger achievement unlocked.

(Sadly, as an entity who only exists online and has a contractual obligation to publicise books, I have to maintain a presence on there to reach readers who are not on here. But the sooner it is shut down, the better.)

Thank you very much! I hope you enjoy it!

If Twitter were a real town square, it would be a permanent crime scene.

Response to anodyne thread explaining how the criminal law operates in relation to “dangerous offenders”:

BlueSky Twitter

The correct term is “dangerous offender”. I did wonder whether (assuming the report is correct) the judge had contributed to the confusion by misspeaking and referring to “dangerous person”, which isn’t a legal concept.

Now, I repeat: I have no idea whether the judge’s decision in this case was legally correct. I wasn’t in court and the news report contains very little detail.

But that’s how “dangerousness” works. And why there can be a disconnect between the law and public understanding.

(Also worth stating for completeness, that even if a judge does find a defendant “dangerous”, they don’t have to automatically impose an Extended Determinate Sentence or life sentence, if the judge deems that a standard sentence will provide enough protection for the public.)

What this all means, is that somebody can commit an obviously dangerous offence, but their future risk may not qualify as “dangerous” in the legal sense.

That seems to be what the judge decided here.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is a high bar.

When New Labour first introduced the concept of dangerous offenders, many more people were swept in than the govt had expected. The law has since adjusted. This summary from the CPS website is ok
cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance…

To make the assessment of dangerousness, the court will take into account the below.

There will usually be reports from Probation, containing risk assessments. And often psychiatric reports.

If an offender is deemed to meet that definition, they may qualify for a particular type of sentence - either an Extended Determinate Sentence (earliest release is 2/3 way through sentence, and only if Parole Board deem safe, plus a longer licence period). Or a life sentence.

The question for the court therefore is not whether the offender has *committed* a dangerous offence. Instead, it’s whether there is a significant risk of committing further dangerous offences.

A “dangerous” offender is defined in the Sentencing Act 2020 as somebody who poses “a significant risk to the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences”.

When an offender is convicted of a particularly serious offence (referred to as a “specified offence”, and listed in the link below), the sentencing judge is required to assess whether the defendant is a “dangerous offender”.

What does this mean?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/1...

Instead, this thread is about dangerousness.

How, it is reasonably asked, could a man who rapes a child in an alleyway *not* be considered dangerous?

It’d because “dangerous” has a particular, tightly-defined legal meaning which doesn’t always sit easily with common sense.

(Although, distinct from the question of whether the sentence was correct in law, if you’re of the view that 7 years is insufficient for an adult who rapes a child, I agree. See books, tweets passim etc.)

We’ll put aside for now the length of the sentence. There’s insufficient detail in the report to follow the judge’s reasoning and application of the Guidelines - we don’t know at what stage the defendant pleaded guilty, any previous convictions, what mitigation existed etc.

The Mail reports that a man who raped a 13 year-old girl has been deemed “not a dangerous person” by a judge, who accordingly declined to pass an “extended sentence”. The offender instead was sentenced to a determinate (i.e. standard) sentence of 7 years.

As ever, the usual disclaimer applies. This is an explanation of the law. Not a defence. If that distinction is beyond you, for your own welfare turn back now.

There is understandable concern following this news report.

Let’s try to break down what has happened. 🧵

Woop! Thank you very much! And thank you Next Chapter Books!

Oh Higgy

Front cover of "The Cut Throat Trial", by S J Fleet.

SIGNED BOOK NEWS

"The Cut Throat Trial", the brand new legal thriller by the very ace S.J. Fleet, aka @barristersecret.bsky.social
is published on August 28th.

Not long now!

You can ORDER, ORDER a SIGNED copy HERE.

biggreenbookshop.com/signed-copie...

They are not sending their best people

Hey! You! Holidaymaker doom-browsing the departure lounge!

Check out WH Smith’s Book of The Month!

An airport exclusive, ahead of publication of #TheCutThroatTrial on 28th August.

Ruin your beach relaxation with a grimly authentic legal thriller.

(You can also preorder here bio.to/7zNmPU)

That is appalling. Where did this happen? It would (should) lead to severe disciplinary consequences in England & Wales.

Ooh! I hope you enjoy it!