The sentences being given to those who have looted are offensive. I'm delighted so many are saying so.
I do, of course, agree that crime must be punished, but what we're seeing is a rash of sentencing that reflects what might be called 'moral outrage' - and very candidly, politically directed moral outrage at that.
But it's curious - because it least it shows that judges (for many of the magistrates courts handing out these sentences are in fact being staffed by judges at present) can and do use moral judgment.
There is however complete reticence to do so in the case of tax avoidance. Then it is argued that such moral judgement would be wrong.
Why the dual standard?
I think you know the answer to that. After all, we all know that only 'nice' people avoid tax, just as only 'little' people pay tax, and loot.
And yes, I do find that duality sickening. So should anyone with a sense of justice.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard
I think that#s slightly unfair. Actually you might’ve noticed that HMRC has been winning the vast majority of avoidance cases recently. even as it as it has been losing the vast majority of £100 penalty cases recently, so I don’t think the judges are entirely bereft of an understanding of real life.
The problem is that the big acounting & legal firms are still going out there selling avoidance knowing that if it works they gain & if, more probably, it doesn;t, their client takes the hit & they walk away unscathed.
HMRC is winning cases – but they only take ones they’re sure they can win
Out of the vast array they have to choose from that’s not comforting
What is needed is a measure that reduces that array
Aren’t they innocent until proven guilty any more?
Not to mention who share a tenancy with the accused.
Is this Tribalism or what?
Tribalism? Let’s not equivocate here. It’s class hatred — to quote Dave’s new catchphrase, “pure and simple.” The inevitable result of a society that has internalised the principles that you are what you own and that the poor must be reviled.
I am reminded of a ditty sung by Frank Spencer in ‘Some Mothers Do ‘Ave Em’…
British justice must be done
Not only done but seen
And now I’ve had it done to me
I know how done I’ve been
Richard
I’m confused. How can you compare looters with tax avoiders? The former have committed a criminal offence while the latter have not. How can somebody who has not committed a criminal offence be sentenced?
I am suggesting that it is possible to apply morality in deciding what is and is not tax avoidance and what is simply wrong application of the law – resulting in another interpretation oif the alw being used
Morality in this case is determining whether it was the intent of the taxpayer to secure a tax advantage that parliament had not intended
The fact is that this is usually easy to determine – but a literal and not ethical basis fo interpretation is preferred by tax lawyers and accountants – so abuse can continue
I’m not quite sure why it is so hard to see the point I am making – that if judges can make ethical judgements on looters intent then they can also do so on taxpayer’s intent
What is difficult to understand is how someone doing something that isn’t a criminal offence will end up in court.
Tax cases do reach court – even those involving avoidance
Their legality is questioned, and rightly so
What’s odd is that you did not know that
Richard, I am aware that allegations of tax evasion end up in court. The court will decide whether or not a crime has been committed: whether it is evasion, avoidance, or something less. You think tax avoidance should be a crime and that is your prerogative. But allegations of tax avoidance don’t end up in court today because it isn’t a crime today.
So I think what may confuse some people is when you write things like, “There is however complete reticence to do so in the case of tax avoidance”, because it looks like you are saying that the court should deliver a guilty verdict in the case of something that isn’t a crime today. The ‘moral outrage’ element, if there is one, is in terms of the sentencing, not the verdict of guilt.
Oh for heaven’s sake
Tax avoidance is of course considered by courts – daily
Not criminal courts – bit whether the abuse is legitimate or not
Pleas show some basic understanding of the issues
I understand that tax avoidance is considered by the courts. Your “Not criminal courts” is the key, here.
What you appear to be saying in effect is that when a court decides whether or not some tax avoidance scheme is legitimate, that it will err on the side of illegitimacy, find the offending party guilty of an offence and put them in prison, despite that party having not been prosecuted in the first instance for that particular offence.
I am not claiming you are saying this, I am saying that is what you appear to me to be saying.
Then you’re fantasising
Try some reality
The sentences that have been handed out are within the sentencing guidelines and are applied daily. There has been nothing really out of the ordinary with the sentencing of rioters. Many of the sentences surprise people because they were unaware of what punishment these crimes carried in the first place. Kicking people out of council houses for instance (or even private properties should the landlord choose) is not a response to the riots. It has been in statute in its current form since 1985.
Judges have sometimes spoken of their moral beliefs on a topic, but have never applied them to verdict or sentence. They apply fact to law given the evidence before them, nothing more, nothing less. To act as their morality dictates is to ask them to decide on sentiment which will simply lead to “judge shopping”, uncertainty and gross unfairness between the punishment of offences.
Well of course they’re legal
But they’re about 20 times on average higher than normal rates
Respectfully, you’re talking utter nonsense
I assume by rate you refer to the sentence. They are not 20 times higher. Such a decision would be immediate grounds for appeal and no Magistrate is so dumb as to give a sentence that will immediately be appealed (it goes on their record). There are sentencing guidelines and the sentences given must fall within the guidelines.
It still does not impose a judge’s moral belief on a case.
No I referred to severity – by which I gather about 60% are going to prison from these courts at present when maybe 3% do normally – including on charges of theft
This is in other words people sentencing considering broader issues – just as tax can be considered in the same way
Which is my point
I suspect quite a lot of these sentences will be appealed – or would be if we provided decent legal support
Can judges see through such things
Yes, sometimes http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/supreme-court-quashes-self-employed-status-autoclenz/517439
But you’d deny that, I presume
This comment has been deleted
Like so many others the author appears to be a neoliberal troll
I’m deleting this and future comments from this source on that basis
The response submitted by this person to this decision justified the action taken
“Can judges see through such things
Yes, sometimes”
This case has got nothing to do with judges applying moral thinking and everything to do with interpreting the law.
“The Supreme Court decision establishes a precedent that the conduct of the contractual parties could “trump” the written terms, according to IR35 specialist Matt Boddington of Accountax.”
Boddington is wrong. It has long been established, not just in employment law but in contract law in the widest sense that where the actual practices differ from the contractual terms and both parties intend that to be the case then the terms of the contract are deemed to have been varied. This principle has come up in many employed/self-employed cases in recent years.
And the reason for the custodial sentences (60%) compared to normal theft sentencing (3%) (and I have assumed your figures are right) has been made clear repeatedly: namely that looting associated with riots is more serious than looting without.
Completely wrong
Or this would not have gone to the Supreme Court
So pure misinformation on your part
Collective punishment, that is, evicting families for the actons of an individual in said family, must surely be illegal under human rights law.
I can envisage a number of lawsuits against the government on this issue.
Kneejerk actions such as this brought about by this pathetic excuse for a government must be nipped in the bud!