Edward Woollard

I had been meaning to write a blog post about Edward Woollard’s case, but I have been distracted by feeling a bit unwell. Having recovered a little, my motivation is also restored. Like many people, I was shocked at the severity of the sentence and I want to set out why I don’t agree with it.

Predictably, some right-wingers greeted the news of the sentence with delight. For example, Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, who said it was ‘[a] good day for justice it seems. Edward Woollard who was revealed as the infamous thug who threw a fire extinguisher off the roof off CCHQ, narrowly avoiding killing a copper, has been sent down for 2 years and 8 months...’ Mr Staines was right at least in that something very bad could have happened in this incident. However, there is a maxim in equity that ‘he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.’ Mr Staines does not come with clean hands, having been convicted for drink driving, not once, but twice. I see no difference between hurling a metal container down towards where there are people in a reckless manner and driving a big and heavy metal container where there are people about, also in a reckless manner.

From a logical viewpoint, my argument so far would be unsatisfactory, as it is a tu quoque argument. Just because Mr Staines behaved in an equally appalling way does not mean that Woollard should not be punished. His was clearly an extremely dangerous and foolish act. I just make the point that it is not just Woollard who has done something like this and it is too easy to be judgemental. But the question remains about whether the punishment is fair and proportionate.

I conceded earlier that something very bad could have come of this reckless act, but the fact is that nothing did. Immediately after the incident, there were hysterical calls, mostly from the right, to charge the suspect with attempted murder, but that was downgraded to violent disorder. The required ‘guilty mind' for the former charge is an intention to kill, and that was never present. It was a reckless act by a young person caught up for the first time in extraordinary events. I vaguely remember when I was 18 and our little group of friends had a few of our own 'could have happened' moments. But we are punished for what we actually do, not what we could have done.

There are other reasons why the sentence was severe – his age, he is only 18, he has no previous convictions and his obvious remorse. He was horrified at what he had done and immediately turned himself in after talking with his mother.

There is one more reason why I think the sentence was severe – politics. The judge said that he wanted to issue a ‘deterrent sentence.’ You are in dangerous territory when you allow the justice system to be used for some reason other than to uphold the law. I agree with the argument of Deborah Orr on that - 'a disproportionate punishment to discourage others is unfair.'

What was it that Gandhi said about Western Civilisation? ‘I think it would be a nice idea. ' I do too.