Why suspend mums’ prison sentences? (From Daily Echo)

Unfortunately, the Echo in its determination to chase no existent stories has failed to report very accurately.

It is unlikely that most of the reported cases would have been sent to prison in any event. Judges have wide sentencing powers, but are all aware that simply keeping someone in prison costs an inordinate amount of money- they tend to reserve it for repeat offenders and for those who are a clear danger to the public.

Indeed, the very first time I prepared a case for Court was a series of frauds totalling about £20 million (Jamshid Hashemi, if anyone is interested). The guy got a six month suspended sentence- in accordance with sentencing guidelines.

But, then, would 'Woman sentenced in according with existing guidelines and given similar sentence to anyone else in the same position' make quite such a gutter-press headline?

Goldenwight wrote:
Unfortunately, the Echo in its determination to chase no existent stories has failed to report very accurately.

It is unlikely that most of the reported cases would have been sent to prison in any event. Judges have wide sentencing powers, but are all aware that simply keeping someone in prison costs an inordinate amount of money- they tend to reserve it for repeat offenders and for those who are a clear danger to the public.

Indeed, the very first time I prepared a case for Court was a series of frauds totalling about £20 million (Jamshid Hashemi, if anyone is interested). The guy got a six month suspended sentence- in accordance with sentencing guidelines.

But, then, would 'Woman sentenced in according with existing guidelines and given similar sentence to anyone else in the same position' make quite such a gutter-press headline?

In that case, why does the Judge, when sentencing, make mention of the fact that the defendant's child/children would suffer if a custodial sentence were given?

Linesman wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: Unfortunately, the Echo in its determination to chase no existent stories has failed to report very accurately. It is unlikely that most of the reported cases would have been sent to prison in any event. Judges have wide sentencing powers, but are all aware that simply keeping someone in prison costs an inordinate amount of money- they tend to reserve it for repeat offenders and for those who are a clear danger to the public. Indeed, the very first time I prepared a case for Court was a series of frauds totalling about £20 million (Jamshid Hashemi, if anyone is interested). The guy got a six month suspended sentence- in accordance with sentencing guidelines. But, then, would 'Woman sentenced in according with existing guidelines and given similar sentence to anyone else in the same position' make quite such a gutter-press headline?

In that case, why does the Judge, when sentencing, make mention of the fact that the defendant's child/children would suffer if a custodial sentence were given?

So that he/she is seen to be being fair and taking all the circumstances into consideration- you really wouldn't want a suspended sentence quashed on appeal because the judge had acted improperly, would you?