A shadow justice minister has demanded a review of guidelines that require judges to consider softer sentences for offenders from ‘deprived’ backgrounds after a drug-dealing couple were controversially spared prison.
Emily Ekin, 30, and Jake Redfern, 32, were handed two-year suspended sentences last week for selling cocaine, ecstasy and other Class A drugs after a judge determined they acted out of ‘desperation’ and had a young child to care for.
Their defence lawyer told Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court that the parents did not feel they had any other ‘alternative other than to embark on this enterprise’, as Redfern was unemployed and Ekin’s wage was minimal.
The couple’s case follows new guidelines introduced by the Sentencing Council last April that spells out a set of ‘mitigating’ factors relating to disadvantages that judges should take into account before passing sentence.
The guidelines regard ‘difficult and/or deprived background or personal circumstance’ and assert factors including low educational attainment, poverty, insecure housing and experience of discrimination.
Emily Ekin, 30, and Jake Redfern, 32, were handed two-year suspended sentences last week for selling cocaine, ecstasy and other Class A drugs after a judge determined they acted out of ‘desperation’
Their defence lawyer told Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court that the parents did not feel they had any other ‘alternative other than to embark on this enterprise’
Tory shadow justice minister Dr Kieran Mullan today said he was ‘fed up’ with ‘excuses’ being made for criminals at a time when millions of people were also facing hardship without turning to crime.
He told MailOnline: ‘People that put time and effort into making money selling drugs could instead be working. We have to stop this culture of not holding people accountable for their choices.
‘Millions of hard working people go out every day and make the choice to do the right thing and it’s an insult to them to give softer sentences to people that make the wrong ones.
‘Like the vast majority of the public I am fed up with excuses being made for criminals.’
Dr Mullan has also written to Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, to call for Ekin and Redfern’s sentences to be reviewed under the Unduly Lenient Sentences scheme.
He pointed out that the starting point for possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply is a custodial sentence of five years and six months, with a sentencing range extending up to seven years and six months.
‘Given the significant disparity between the sentencing guidelines and the penalties imposed, I respectfully request that you consider whether both the custodial tariff and the decision to suspend the sentences are appropriate, or whether they are unduly lenient,’ he told Lord Hermer.
The Sentencing Council, the official body responsible for setting guidelines for judges and magistrates, has for the first time spelt out ‘mitigating’ factors relating to disadvantage that courts should consider before passing sentence
Shadow justice minister Dr Kieran Mullan today said he was ‘fed up’ with ‘excuses’ being made for criminals
The Attorney General has 28 days to decide whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal to review the sentence.
Under the new sentencing guidelines, judges and magistrates are told to consider 12 factors of ‘disadvantage’ relating to criminals who are being sentenced.
The factors include negative experiences of authority, early experience of offending by family members, negative influences from peers and difficulties relating to the misuse of drugs and alcohol.
In response to a consultation over the changes last year, then Justice Secretary Alex Chalk said the guidance was ‘patronising’ and ‘inaccurate’, and risked making poor schooling and poverty excuses for offenders to commit crimes.
Tory MP Philip Davies also hit out against the move, writing in a consultation document: ‘I do not agree that having a difficult or deprived background makes you less culpable for committing an offence – such as robbery with all the violence that entails and the fear caused to the victim.
‘However, I am at even more of a loss to understand why this mitigation is being suggested for all offences.
Both pleaded guilty to several drug offences with intent to supply, with the mother also pleading guilty to a separate charge for possession of an offensive weapon
‘I also do not think that ”experience of discrimination” or ”negative experiences of authority” (if they can even be verified or quantified) should have any bearing whatsoever on sentencing. Neither should having been in care/having low educational attainment etc.
‘I object very strongly to this whole section as a mitigating factor for any offence, never mind all offences.’
MailOnline has contacted the Attorney General’s Office and the Sentencing Council for comment.