Robert Dickson says deterrent sentences have worked in the past in
curbing offences ranging from mail train robberies to slashings and more
Judges taking a leaf out of Lord Carmont's book could be the answer to
the present wave of violent crime
THE death of Lord Edmund Davies last month awoke in the memory of the
public images of the Great Train Robbery and the subsequent trial of
some of those responsible. As was clear from the obituary which was
published in The Herald, he was a man of outstanding legal ability, who
chaired public inquiries, including that into police pay and conditions,
and who made a major contribution to the evolution of English law. He
will, however, always be remembered as the Judge who imposed heavy
sentences on those convicted of Britain's first major train hi-jacking.
The fact that some of the sentences were later reduced on appeal
received little publicity.
The words of the trial Judge that the original sentences were intended
as a warning to others received headline treatment in almost every
newspaper. Whether it is a coincidence or that Mr Justice (as he was)
Edmund Davies's admonition had the desired effect, there does not appear
to have been a similar attempt on such a scale to rob a mail train
since.
A comparable situation arose 40 years ago when razor gangs ran amok in
Glasgow. When the diminutive Lord Carmont came through from Edinburgh to
preside over the High Court Circuit, few people realised that a firm
stand was about to be taken against these thugs, and that a new phrase
''Doing a Carmont'' would enter the language of the underworld. Warning
that future sentences might require to be more severe if the use of
razors and other similar weapons did not cease forthwith, the Judge
imposed sentences of up to 10 years' imprisonment on all those who
appeared before him convicted of inflicting horrific injuries on others.
One week later the Glasgow police had their first weekend since the war
without a single slashing or similar attack.
This was not the first occasion on which Glasgow 'neds' had been the
recipients of judicial wrath as violent crime escalated. The mild and
apparently gentle Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison, famous for his brilliant
representation as Oscar Slater and Donald Marrett's KC, came to Glasgow
for a High Court sitting 20 years earlier. So savage (or realistic
depending on your point of view) were his disposals that he required a
police guard on the train back home. Sir Percy Sillitoe, the Chief
Constable of Glasgow, gladly supplied the men for this task; the
resulting drop in violent crime in the Gorbals was immediately obvious
and for a period relative calm returned to the city.
Certain lessons can perhaps be learned from the effects of the three
histories. First, deterrent sentences can and do make a difference but
they depend largely on the publicity which they receive. The widespread
media coverage accorded to the 30-year sentences imposed on Charles
Wilson and his fellow robbers was an essential part of the message that
crime of this sort would not be allowed to pay. Similarly, the front
pages of all three Glasgow evening newspapers carried pictures of Lord
Carmont and his chilling words of warning. Without that support the
Judges' attempts to stem the tide of violent crime would have been in
vain.
Recently, I saw an improvement in the standard of evidence given in
court after Lord Penrose had imprisoned one witness for 18 months when
she had deliberately defied the court and repeatedly acted in total
contempt of the judicial system. Again the publicity given to what began
as another Lanarkshire knife case had an effect on outside matters. When
witnesses realise that prevarication and perjury will be severely and
immediately dealt with they consider their position more carefully
before embarking on such a dangerous course of action. The apparent
arrogance of the witness in court was in stark contrast to her state as
she descended to the cells.
A second lesson which may be apparent from looking back on the visits
of Lords Aitchison and Carmont to Glasgow is that the effect of
deterrent sentences is limited to the passage of time. For a short time
there can be a noticeable drop in statistics for particular crimes but
in due course the lessons are forgotten. Any judicial message is also
governed by the ability of the police to arrest the right person and of
the judicial process to result in a justified conviction. So long as
criminals believe either that they can avoid detection or alternatively
can, by manipulating the system, escape conviction, the fear of a
lengthy prison sentence will lose its effect.
Whether it is because juries in the past were more gullible or
realistic, or whether it is because of the publicity given to the
quashing of certain convictions in England, the task for the prosecution
of proving a case to satisfy the majority of 15 members of the public is
proving more and more difficult.
Once again assaults with weapons are greatly on the increase. The use
of knives, and in particular razor blades, has dramatically risen over
the past three years. All the threats of draconian sentences will have
no effect unless they are brought forcibly to the attention of the
public and unless those responsible for these evil crimes know that they
are liable to be caught and convicted.
Part of the trouble, in many cases, has been the reluctant witness who
refuses to speak up in court. Lord Penrose, by his stand, took the first
step towards tackling this growing problem. Once criminals know that
witnesses are aware of the perils of evasiveness in court, they will
also know that their chances of escaping conviction are diminished. When
that occurs then the courts will have started along the road to ensure
that the pattern set by Lords Aitchison and Carmont of obtaining a
temporary reduction in the rise of violent crime is possible again. If
the message from the courts is clear and unequivocal, then nobody can
complain that they are not doing their best to fight violent crime; the
rest is up to the media and the public to play their part before the war
is totally lost.
Lord Davies
Lord Carmont
Lord Aitchison
The Judge imposed sentences of up to 10 years' imprisonment . . . one
week later Glasgow police had their first weekend since the war without
a single slashing
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article