SMT Online Editor's View: Life for a knife

13 Nov 09

Well, well, well. Justice Secretary (and former Home Secretary) Jack Straw announced this very week that the low life in our society who take to the streets with knives – and subsequently kill someone with one of them – will face a minimum of 25 years in jail for their actions.

That raises the ‘tariff’ from a standard 15 years, and comes in the wake of a sentencing review ordered in the summer following criticisms in the mass media dished out – and quite rightly so – by the parents of Ben Kinsella, the 16-year-old brother of former EastEnders star Brooke who was stabbed to death in Islington last June.

Straw, who’s said to want this new legislation in place come the first quarter of 2010, told Parliament: “I propose to introduce a new adult starting point of 25 years’ imprisonment for murder when a knife or other weapon is carried to the scene with the intention of using that weapon.”

Employing all the voter-friendly vocabulary, Straw continued: “The loss of a loved one under any circumstances is heartbreaking. Even more so when they’re the victim of a senseless and appalling murder. It’s only right that thugs who carry knives with the intention of using them, potentially to kill if the opportunity arises, should go to prison for a long time.”

The menace on our streets

Apparently, Straw is “determined to do everything” within his power to tackle the “menace of knife crime” on our streets.

“This Government is very clear that if someone is caught carrying a knife there will be very serious consequences.” The current Government being clear on something? That would certainly make a nice change.

Let’s look at the facts. The proposed change relates directly to the so-called ‘start point’ used by Judges when they set a minimum tariff on life sentencing for the crime of murder. In truth, the bar could be set higher or lower than 25 years depending on mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In addition, Courts jailing juvenile killers will stick at the ‘start point’ of 12 years.

Interestingly – and not without controversy – Straw has seemingly stopped short of putting knife murderers on a par with those who would use firearms to commit their criminal acts. The latter face at least 30 years’ detention (in terms of sentencing, anyway) at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

What’s the difference between the two? Can anyone from the Cabinet enlighten me, please?

And by the way, Mr Straw, not doing anything to raise the limits for juvenile offenders is little other than a red rag to a bull. If you were wondering why kids carry knives in their tuck boxes, now you know.

Statistics have told us that four-in-five knife offenders have avoided any kind of prison term. Not surprising, really. If Judges have to continually take the aforementioned ‘mitigating circumstances’ into account then how are we ever going to have a sentencing system that’s equitable and fair?

Even 25 years may not be enough

If you deliberately kill someone with a knife (or any other implement, for that matter), you go to jail for life. Simple, isn’t it? Or rather it should be.

Increased sentencing plans are all well and good, but without the Government cutting the masses of red tape they’ve tied us all up with so that more police can be released on to our streets to catch criminals and more prisons can be built to house society’s unwanted, there’s every chance Straw’s vote-grabbing words will prove to be yet another empty gesture.

Far be it from me to be cynical, but anyone would think a General Election was just around the corner.

For certain crimes, I’d suggest that even 25 years isn’t enough. Murderers are still being let out having served only half of their allotted time of incarceration. It’s a disgrace.

Of course, there’s a massively controversial alternative. One that, for crimes like murder, might well be construed by some as better, fairer, quicker, less expensive (for the already very beleaguered tax payer) and that would reduce the crime rate on a permanent basis.

Going down that route, though, would see the Human Rights contingent rise up in arms. “What about the people who are really innocent? How do we know for sure that individuals are guilty?” Their point is an entirely valid one to make. We should never countenance the death penalty in what purports to be a civilised society.

Down the years, we’ve witnessed brash scenes on the late-night news bulletins of – apparently no longer in the wrong – alleged murderers and terrorists punching the air as they’re let out of prison on appeal after some new shred of evidence miraculously appears to disprove the original belief that they were, in fact, guilty as charged.

All I would say on that particular point is this: if they didn’t do what they were supposed to have done, then who did? Where are the follow-up investigations and convictions to bring the real criminals to justice?

Who speaks for Kunal Mohanty?

I’ve no doubt that Liberty and all of the other politically correct supporters of the Human Rights Act believe their stance is one founded on the very best of intentions, but they ought to remember a vital truism.

First and foremost, those who deserve basic Human Rights above anyone else are the decent, law-abiding members of the public, all of whom must harbour the right to dwell peacefully in a civil and safe society.

Kunal Mohanty had that right. Last March, the 30-year-old Indian naval officer was in Glasgow to sit his captain’s examinations at the city’s Nautical College, but Christopher Miller was determined that he wouldn’t have the opportunity to do so.

Poor Kunal was out walking with three friends of his in the Gorbals district of Scotland’s finest city when, unprovoked, Miller shouted racial abuse and then pounced on Mohanty, slashing his throat with a blade.

Police and doctors who later attended the scene described the assault as one of the worst they’d ever seen.

To compound matters, as Mohanty – who was about to become a father for the first time – lay dying in the street, 25-year-old Miller and his mate John McGrory were caught on CCTV. Post-assault, they were seen embracing and punching their fists in the air. Miller even completed an SPL-style goal-scoring celebration by pulling his top over his head.

In the same week that Straw attempted to be ‘tough on crime’, Miller was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. He’ll probably be out in ten, by which time he’d have reached the ripe old age of 35. In other words, the best part of his life will still be ahead of him.

What about Kunal Mohanty? Who speaks for him? He no longer has a life, while his soon-to-be-born child will be denied a birth father.

Locked away for good

Judge John Beckett QC said to Miller in the Courtroom: “Everyone in this city and this country should feel shame for what you did?” I’m pretty sure they do, Judge Beckett.

Lesley Thomson – area procurator fiscal for Glasgow and Strathkelvin – later added: “Knife carriers have no place in our society, and people who act like Miller have no place in our society.”

Indeed they don’t, which is why Judge Beckett should have dished out a life sentence that means life. If people like Miller are capable of killing once they are more than capable of doing so again, no matter how many social workers and psychotherapists attempt to reinvent them behind bars. One need only point to the re-offending statistics to amply support this assertion.

Murderers must be locked up for good. Their dead victims aren’t going to be granted a second chance, so why the Hell should they?

A Home Office climbdown? Whatever next?

The news on knife crime sentencing comes in the same week as a Home Office climbdown – now there’s a rare occurrence (said the Editor with tongue firmly in cheek) – on DNA storage.

It has emerged that innocent people arrested but neither charged nor convicted of terror-related offences are to be treated separately to all other alleged crimes, with their fingerprints and any other genetic profiles retained (potentially, at least) on an indefinite basis.

By way of contrast, those found innocent of any other suspected crime will have their DNA records retained for a maximum of six years only.

As part of its climbdown, the Home Office plans to keep the profiles of children innocent of alleged minor crimes for three years rather than the six-year timescale originally mooted.

Those youngsters convicted of minor offences will have their details retained on the DNA database – which harbours the stats of anything up to one million innocent individuals at any given time – for five years, or indefinitely if found guilty of a second offence.

The Government had no option on this one. Home Secretary Alan Johnsons plans earlier this year would have seen some innocent peoples’ details remain on record for 12 years. An administrative and security nightmare waiting to happen, and completely unnecessary to boot.

On grounds of national security

Under the revised plans, which appear to be far better and certainly more practical, the DNA of those arrested over – but not charged or convicted for – terror offences will remain on the national database for a minimum of six years.

On the grounds of national security, senior ranking police officers will be able to review each case every couple of years to ascertain whether or not continued retention is warranted.

Johnson’s compatriot, the Home Office minister Alan Campbell, believes these revised proposals to be “proportionate” and that they’ll ensure the right people are on the database.

His own department’s document stresses that one in every ten murders and rapes from a sample size of just shy of 700 crimes were solved as a result of DNA matches to individuals not previously convicted of an offence.

There are those – Tory MP David Davis among them – who still feel the Government is continuing to demonstrate “astonishing degrees of ignorance and intransigence” over keeping the DNA profiles of innocent people on its central database.

Whatever your view, there’s one ‘immovable’ in all of this. The DNA database must remain reasonable and proportionate at all times and, just like CCTV, it has to be managed and used in such a way that it retains the full confidence of the general public.

Without that, the national security agenda will quickly degenerate into a busted flush. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Fear of being branded a criminal

Moving seamlessly on from DNA to the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), did you know that anything up to 15,000 people have (allegedly) been wrongly branded criminals or accused of serious offences?

According to The Daily Telegraph’s Whitehall Editor Christopher Hope, fears are growing that this news “could deter innocent people from applying for jobs whose incumbents need to be scrutinised for fear of them being branded a criminal”.

Critics feel that simple errors could cost people their jobs and, in the longer term, ruin lives.

Official figures suggest that the number of upheld complaints in relation to CRB checks has more than doubled these last six years. In 2002-2003, the statistic in question stood at 1,111. Come 2008-2009, it has risen to 2,509.

A total of 15,320 complaints about checks have been upheld since the Bureau was established in 2002, and it’s thought that a significant number relate to individuals wrongly accused of criminal offences.

Over 11 million adults are going to need checking on a new database to be administered by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

“If the CRB cannot get factual data right,” opines Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, “then how on Earth can this new agency deal with anecdotal information without the risk of major injustices?” Quite.

I agree with David Green – the director of the Civitas ‘Think Tank’ – and Josie Appleton of the campaigning group that is The Manifesto Club. They assert that the system in place creates a false sense of security by placing far too much reliance on black and white paperwork and databases rather than any information received in person.

Surely employers would be better advised to use their personal knowledge and judgement when it comes to potential volunteers? This is the type of decision that ought to be taken by qualified people on the ground. Arriving at what are inevitably important conclusions based purely on reports and faxes isn’t always the most sage of policies.

The new vetting system is also going to be dealing with hearsay evidence, which can be muddy at best. Hardly a step in the right direction, is it?

Strengthening the use of RIPA

Interestingly, new measures have also been announced by David Hanson – the minister of state for security, counter-terrorism, crime and policing – that are designed to strengthen the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (more commonly known, of course, as RIPA).

A public consultation conducted by the Government received over 200 responses – not a huge feedback, by any means – and Hanson and Co will now bring forward legislation to implement change.

The idea is that the level of authorisation required by local authorities to sign-off on investigatory techniques will be raised to prevent them from being used for trivial matters. Following the public consultation on RIPA, a senior executive now has to approve how – and when – the techniques are used to pursue criminality.

Elected councillors in each local authority are also required to oversee the use of RIPA. New guidance will be published on how authorities should use RIPA.

The Government is keen to “clarify the test of necessity and proportionality so that techniques will not be used to investigate dog fouling or people putting their bins out a day early” – surprising that none of us liked that idea, isn’t it? – and “treat covert surveillance of legal consultations as ‘intrusive’ rather than ‘directed’, meaning that it can only be carried out by a very limited number of public officials.”

It’s fairly clear that a wide range of public authorities need to be able to authorise key techniques under RIPA in order to protect us mere innocents from those who would seek to do us harm.

That said, those same public authorities should not – and should not be allowed to – overstep the mark. They must respect our right to privacy, and only use techniques under RIPA when it’s necessary and proportionate to do so.

Will the new Government measures allow both of these objectives to be met? Only time will tell.

Cumbria: ‘open’ for business

On Monday, energy minister Ed Milliband announced the Government’s provisional go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations courtesy of its National Policy Statement.

More specifically, the declaration confirms the location of no less than ten sites deemed suitable for future nuclear plants. They include three – Sellafield (couldn’t have predicted that one), Braystones and Kirkstanton – which just happen to be in Cumbria.

Prior to this – on 28 October – the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) issued a news release confirming the sale of 190 hectares of land to the north of the existing nuclear facility at Sellafield for a cool £70 million. The buyers? A consortium made up of Iberdrola SA, GDF Suez SA and Scottish and Southern Energy.

The sale of this site continues to add focus to the potential for new nuclear build on Britain’s ‘Energy Coast’, in addition to those sites already put forward by the NDA and the two by RW NPower at the aforementioned Braystones and Kirkstanton locations.

According to a statement I received from law firm Martineau, the Cumbrian Economic Strategy for the period 2009-2019 encompasses £1.4 billion of regeneration funding and capital projects, including new marinas and water-based regeneration projects at Barrow, Maryport, Workington and Kendal, new academy schools and a raft of what’s known as ‘business clusters’.

A dozen longer term projects have also been identified, including the regeneration of the University of Cumbria’s satellite sites, tidal energy projects and the mixed use regeneration of the 425-hectare site in the Derwent Forest. All of them commendable.

Talking about a revolution

Back in February, Secretary of State for Business, Administration and Skills Lord Mandelson made positive comments on new nuclear build and low carbon economic opportunities in Cumbria. There was even talk of an ‘industrial revolution’ of sorts.

This is all very laudable and (with the promise of job creation) another piece of clever spin from an ailing Government desperate for kind words from just about anywhere, but what about the security implications of this sweet talk?

Cumbria is a beautiful County, but it’s already one frequently plagued by an influx of naïve protestors who would rather this nation gave up its nuclear capability altogether and became The Vulnerable Man of Europe (not to say the developed world).

These plans could greatly increase the numbers of such ‘peaceful’ nay-sayers who think it’s acceptable to harass nuclear workers from dawn ‘til dusk.

Sellafield directly employs around 10,000 people and is one of the two largest, non-governmental employers in West Cumbria (along with BAE Systems at Barrow-in-Furness). Approximately 90 per cent of employees originate from West Cumbria, so I understand the argument for further development.

Due to the increase in local unemployment following any run down of Sellafield operations, the NDA is concerned that this needs to be managed.

Let’s just hope the vital, high level security measures that will need to be put in place and stringently managed by the Government (and yet don’t warrant a mention in any of the material I’ve read on these proposals) are being adequately addressed now that our Critical National Infrastructure is continually at risk from the terrorist threat.

What about an incident communication plan?

Speaking of potential ‘fallout’ – if you’ll pardon the pun – from any given security incident (nuclear-related or otherwise), it’s really loose tongues and prolonged national media attention that can wreak catastrophic effects on business in any sector. If you don’t believe me, ask Gerald Ratner.

To avoid such scenarios, security managers and their Boards of Directors ought to know how to take control following an incident. In this way, they can deliver an immediate response to the waiting scribes with a good degree of confidence and aplomb.

Building on the demonstrable success of its BS 25999-1 business continuity standard, the BSI has published a book specifically aimed at security and risk managers that guides them smoothly through the pitfalls of incident communications strategy.

Expertly pieced together by Jim Preen (an Oxford University-educated consultant and businessman), it will help managers think like journalists (feel free to call me for some advice on that subject!) while at the same time anticipating the questions they may face.

The book covers diverse elements including the establishment of an incident website, the importance of call cascades, how to run successful press conferences, how to set up and run and incident Press Room, post-incident evaluation and testing your plans.

Communication Strategies: Write Your Incident Communication Plan Now is well worth a read.

Policing Controversy in print

As regular readers will know, I’m an avid viewer of BBC1’s political debating ‘bear pit’ that is Question Time. I even follow the programme on Twitter.

Last night’s instalment was pretty flat, to be fair, notable only for regular chair David Dimbleby’s absence, journalist and social commentator Will Self’s beautifully acerbic broadsides and more than several incisive socio-political observations from double Olympic gold medallist rowing star James Cracknell.

One week earlier, on Bonfire Night no less, we were treated to Sir Ian Blair being one of the panel members.

In a performance that I found to be pretty unremarkable for a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Blair continued to hint at the political leanings he appeared so readily to adopt when ensconced at the Yard.

I say this merely as a lead-in. Also a week or so ago, my esteemed colleague Alan Hyder – Editor of SMT Online’s sister security news medium Security Installer – pointed out that Blair had just published an account of his 45 turbulent months as Commissioner in a book entitled Policing Controversy.

All of the controversial moments are duly noted: the 7/7 suicide bombings in London, the infamous Stockwell shooting incident, the Cash for Honours inquiry and the Tarique Ghaffur episode among them.

Blair studied at Oxford University, and talks of the “minor but irritating streak of upper class nastiness” he believes he experienced at his Alma Mater. There’s a classic quote, too: “I understood very clearly for the first time that those with money and supposed breeding did not expect their children to be arrested.”

Shouldn’t senior policemen remain politically and socially neutral, whatever their personal beliefs may be?

Serving the public interest

Blair is clearly angered and aggrieved about his office having been convicted on Health and Safety grounds for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. If you remember, the Independent Police Complaints Commissions inquiry took two years and, according to Blair, “every opportunity to be as unforgiving as possible.”

That’s exactly what an independent complaints commission is meant to be, Sir Ian. If it isn’t then it’s not serving the public interest and there’s little or no point in it being there.

Writing about Blair’s book in The Times’ brilliant Culture supplement, the superb journalist and former Daily Telegraph and London Evening Standard editor Max Hastings states: “By focusing on his own beleaguerment, Blair conveys the sense of an institution forever on the back foot. His self-righteousness suggests a man unaccustomed to look in the mirror, save to check that his cap is straight. It simply will not do to assert, as he does, that the armed officers who shot Jean Charles de Menezes ‘should each have been awarded the George Medal’ for courage.”

This book merely reinforces what many people believe – that Blair was a Commissioner who seemingly dismissed any operational criticisms, and didn’t appear to be fully in touch with what was happening on the ground.

Labour ‘luminaries’ such as Charles Clarke, Jack Straw and – most prominently of all – Jacqui Smith continually praised Sir Ian. The Tories did not, which is more than likely why (alongside his apparent disdain for the Conservative voting classes) he accused them of turning the Metropolitan Police Service into a political football of convenience.

The Tories aren’t the guilty party here. Rather, the blame for this development rests squarely with the actions and comments of not just Blair but also several other senior policemen who have misguidedly spent far too much time cuddling up to Westminster.

Until next time...

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine