Public's ‘gut instinct' should count in reviewing criminal cases, says Tice

Independent

6 hours ago

The British public's 'gut instinct' should count when reviewing criminal cases, Richard Tice said as he proposed a Bill named after Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for social media posts in the wake of the Southport murders.
The deputy leader of Reform UK will be introducing 'Lucy's Bill', which would allow people to mount mass appeals against punishments they deem to be too severe or lenient.
It comes after Mrs Connolly, the wife of Conservative councillor Ray Connolly, was jailed last year for 31 months for inciting racial hatred, a sentence which has been criticised as being too harsh.
The Bill will be introduced to the House of Commons on Wednesday and would mean campaigners could get the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to reconsider cases deemed unduly harsh.
Speaking outside HMP Peterborough, where he visited Connolly on Tuesday, Mr Tice said she was a 'political prisoner'.
He said: 'I genuinely fear that she is actually being treated as a political prisoner for political purposes.'
Mrs Connolly posted on X: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it,' in the wake of the Southport stabbings.
An appeal against her sentence was dismissed at the Court of Appeal last month.
Mr Tice claimed Mrs Connolly had bruises on her wrists which he said were from handcuffs but that she was calm and wanted to see through her sentence and rebuild her life.
He said he hoped the Bill would enable a 'treble check' on sentences.
'The whole point about justice is it has to have the confidence of the British people,' Mr Tice said.
'We're not calling into dispute the brilliance of our legal system and our judges.
'What we're just saying is, sometimes, however good you are, you might not quite get it right, and it's not unreasonable to have a treble check of the sentence itself.'
He said that the number of people required to sign the petition could be up for debate.
He added: 'To get 500 signatures on a form is not an easy thing. You've got to explain it to 500 people, and they've got to be convinced.
'You can always say at the margin something might be abused. That doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about it.'
When asked why the public should get a say in legal cases, Mr Tice said: 'Never underestimate the common sense of the Great British public and their gut instinct for where something is fair or not fair. We're all human, judges can get things wrong, and sometimes there can be political pressure.
'In this situation, we had a prime minister that effectively ordered the judges to give very strict sentences, and people have very serious concerns about that.
'There's a lot of concern amongst the British public that Lucy Connolly and others were the victims of two-tier justice.'
Under the Bill, campaigners would need to get 500 people to sign a petition against a punishment handed down in Crown Court.
Those cases would be considered for eight weeks by the CCRC, which may refer them to the Court of Appeal for a decision.
Mr Tice said of choosing the CCRC over the Attorney General: 'The Attorney General is a busy person and ultimately a political person, whereas the (CCRC) should not be that.
'It could potentially be extra work but it wouldn't be very many cases a year. It might be an opportunity for the CCRC to say 'We actually need to relook at our competences, how we operate, our procedures. Are we getting it right? Can we improve ourselves?'.
He did not say how much the proposal could cost the taxpayer but added: 'I want to have the debate and the discussion and give the British people the ability to have ever more confidence in our justice system.
'If you lose that confidence, if you lose that trust, that's a very bad place to be.'