Two controversial criminal cases

Case 1

In August 2024, Mr Ricky Jones (a Labour Party Councillor) was charged with encouraging violent disorder. He was tried by a jury in the Crown Court (at Snaresbrook, pictured below). The charge arose from Jones' attendance at an 'anti-racism rally' at which he called for the throats of 'far-right activists' to be cut. 

The offence of "encouraging" is in the Serious Crime Act 2007 . Violent Disorder is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 section 2.

Jones was acquitted by the jury - BBC News 15 August 2025. 

Crown Court - Snaresbrook

Case 2

His case has been compared with Lucy Connolly who received a 31 month prison sentence after a guilty plea to an offence under - Public Order Act 1986 section 19(1). The offence is in Part III of the Act - headed Racial Hatred. Her offence arose from a tweet in July 2024 during the aftermath of the murders committed in Southport by Axel Rudakubana - (previous post).

 

 Connolly accepted that (1)(b) applied - 'having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.'

Her offence arose from a tweet in July 2024 during the aftermath of the Southport murders. Serious disorder took place at locations housing migrants. My short post about her appeal is HERE. 

Whilst I think that Connolly's 31 month sentence was disproportionate, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ruled that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Sentencing guidelines had been properly applied by the judge.

Discussion  

The two cases have proved to be controversial. Both cases arose from conduct that is certainly reprehensible but I do not think they show the existence of some form of 'two-tier justice.' 

(a) the offences charged were different. 

(b) Jones' case was heard by a jury which decided to acquit him. Juries deliberate in private and do not give reasons for their decisions. Connolly's case was a guilty plea and so no jury was involved. She was represented by counsel during the criminal proceedings. 

An important factor for anyone facing trial is that pleading guilty at an early stage entitles the defendant to a sentence discount of up to 30%. Any trial inevitably runs the risk that there will be a guilty verdict. Consequently, 30% is a powerful reason to avoid trial. 

In Connolly's case, the trial judge had concluded that the appropriate sentence before any reduction for a guilty plea would have been 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment. Reducing that by 25%, to reflect the guilty plea which had not been indicated at the first opportunity, he imposed the sentence of 31 months. 

(c) Connolly's case required Sentencing Guidelines to be applied. The section 19 offence carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment (or a fine or both). Hence, the sentence imposed on Connolly arose from a high maximum and from application of sentencing guidelines. Parliament (made up of politicians) has set the maximum. The Sentencing Council is responsible for the guidelines.

Had Jones been convicted, he would have faced a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment - (i.e. the maximum for the 'reference' offence which, in his case, was violent disorder).

Criticism of the Connolly sentence should perhaps be directed at the 7 years maximum which applies to any of the various offences within Part III of the legislation. The sentencing guidelines reflect Parliament's intention to deal with such cases severely.

Addition 22 August 2025

Lucy Connolly was released on 21 August 2025 - BBC News.