I don't get this (We are reading a news report so may have missed the context of the comments).
Referring to an employment reference for Moran, which had been withdrawn, Mr Justice Hunt said he was not sure of the extent to which a sentencing court should consider the future employment of people convicted of serious crime.
The Judge in the Crotty case explicitly referred to the future employment of the convicted soldier in sentencing.
People, he said, should not get too “carried away” with the notion that sentencing courts paid significant attention to employment references. A person’s previous good behaviour “goes up in smoke” when they are before the court on serious charges.
This is evidently not true. It is often cited that previous good behavior is a factor in sentencing. In fact, lack of previous convictions is explicitly cited as a mitigating factor in the current
sentencing guidelines. And in the UK (see below) there is a spectrum for how previous convictions are aggravating or mitigating to the current circumstances.
Here's a detailed walk through of the sentencing approach used in the UK.
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
Mitigating Factors:
- Prospects of or in work, training or education - "This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody"
- Positive character and/or exemplary conduct (regardless of previous convictions) - "Evidence that an offender has demonstrated a positive side to their character may reduce the sentence"
- No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
These are factors cited by the Judge in the Crotty case. The sentence seems to be in line with how the case would be sentenced in the UK and is also in line with for example, the other Judge who sentenced Kyle Hayes in the Limerick (who got a glowing character reference from John Kiely).
The point is, if the sentencing guidelines understate what is required, then that is what needs to be addressed. We need to have confidence in the process and the independence of the Judiciary and the DPP to execute the process. All i've seen in relation to this is inflammatory and reactionary statements, first from the politicians, then the DPP appealing in response to them and this statement from the Judge, which seems out of line with existing practice.
We need a system that runs consistently, not one that responds to the level of media interest. We need effective legislation and a system resourced properly to deliver, including e.g. sufficient prison places. That is 100% solvable at the political level. Talking about the role of the army in this is total misdirection and will do nothing to bring Justice to the many who are denied it.