Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, lived up both to his name and his job title yesterday. His decision, at the Court of Appeal, to reduce the sentence of Munir Hussain, effectively sending him home as a free man, was wise indeed. Hussain is the High Wycombe businessman who attacked a knife-wielding burglar with a cricket bat and, for beating him unconscious, had been sentenced to serve two years in jail.
In reducing his sentence — but, crucially, not overturning his conviction — Lord Judge showed that it was possible for the judiciary not only to enforce the law, but also to show an understanding of humanity.
Judge John Reddihough, who delivered the original sentence, was at fault in this respect. Even before sending Hussain to jail for two years, Judge Reddihough praised his courage. The message was mixed, and it jarred. Swiftly, Lord Judge has not only righted a wrong, but has apparently realised that this was a case in which the public reputation of the judiciary was at stake.
When judges fail, the public starts to judge judges. When this happens, the politicians step in. This is rarely good. When politicians attempt to draft laws in direct response to public uproar, their efforts are generally cack-handed and unenforceable, if not downright unwise. Amid the furore over the initial sentence of Munir Hussain, both Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, and Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, promised to review the law that restricts householders to using only “reasonable force” against an intruder.
And yet, in this instance, the law worked perfectly. Regardless of provocation — and Munir and Tokeer Hussain had plenty — the law prohibits against beating a man unconscious with a cricket bat. At fault, only, was the sentencing. In remedying that, while in no way playing down the crime, Lord Judge delivered in a manner that we must hope our judiciary always can.
Advertisement
Even while this was happening, however, half a mile away in the Old Bailey, the judiciary was again at risk of finding itself out of step with the society it serves. Here, Frances Inglis, a 57-year-old woman, was being convicted for murder and attempted murder. The victim was her severely brain-damaged son Tom, 22. In 2008, she gave him a lethal injection of heroin. Inglis was already on bail, for having attempted to kill him once before.
Judge Barker expressed sympathy, but also pointed out that there is no concept of “mercy killing” within the law. “You did a terrible thing,” he told her. “You knew you were breaking the law, and you knew the consequences.” All of this is true. But, when one hears that voices from the public gallery cried: “Shame on you” as the judge told her thst she would be jailed for at least nine years, one is not surprised.
Some may argue that the judiciary here is the fall guy for a fault in the law. Frances Inglis’s crime was by no means a clear-cut case of assisted dying, but this is an issue that will not go away. There are other cases pending.
Even in the case of the Hussain brothers, there is much that still publicly rankles. Tokeer Hussain still faces two years in jail, on the basis that he, unlike his brother, was the victim of no initial crime. The logic is dubious. Worse, of the burglars who began it all, only one has ever been charged. He was declared unfit to plead, and was merely given a supervision order. There are accusations that he has subsequently reoffended.
Where the actions of the courts so clearly rub against public opinion, the judiciary risks becoming an election issue. If the judges are to safeguard an independent future, they must keep an eye on their reputation in the world outside.