Did Carrick Deserve A Whole Life Order?
There is no better advertisement for diversity in the judiciary that the Honourable Justice Mrs. Cheema-Grubb. She was the first Asian woman to be appointed to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court and is therefore an influential and important representative of the British Asian community.
Over the past few months, Dame Cheema-Grubb has also been the public face of the judiciary itself as her sentencing remarks have been streamed in two high profile cases.
In December she delivered a sentence to Anne Sacoolas over the death of Harry Dunn and then yesterday she handed David Carrick 36 life sentences with a minimum term of 32 years.
The live coverage of sentencing remarks is a new feature in England and Wales and is generally to be welcomed. Greater transparency in the courts is a good thing so long as it is done in a way that protects the vulnerable and respects privacy. However this openness also means that more questions will be asked about the conclusions derived by judges and there will also be criticism levelled at judges too.
Thus while the sentence that David Carrick received means that he will be a very old man by the time he sees the outside of a prison wall again, Cheema-Grubb’s decision to not issue a whole life order has received some pushback. Indeed the Attorney General’s Office has reportedly received “multiple requests” to review the jail term under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. If that proceeds then the sentence may be referred to the Court of Appeal which has the power to raise the sentence. Other serial rapists, Reynhard Sinaga and Joseph McCann, have had their minimum terms increased in this way in recent years.
Should Carrick have received a longer sentence or even a whole life order?