The Attorney General’s Office has confirmed it has received a request to review the sentence of Isle of Wight paedophile Samuel Huckle, who walked out of court with a suspended sentence on Friday.
The 20-year-old, of St Faith’s Road, Cowes was given a 16-month prison sentence, suspended for 2 years, for distributing and possessing over 1,000 indecent images of children – the youngest being just 3 months old.
There was outrage amongst the Isle of Wight community across the weekend following Island Echo’s reporting of the sentencing hearing, with many commentators questioning the decision of His Honour Judge Bowes KC.
Disgust amongst Island Echo readers is such that it is thought hundreds have submitted a request for Huckle’s case to be looked at again under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme in the past few days.
The scheme is a process that allows the public to request that the Attorney General review a Crown Court sentence in England and Wales. The scheme is used to review sentences that are considered to be too lenient.
It has been confirmed to Island Echo that a request has been received and the case will now be considered by Law Officers.
If the Law Officer decides that there is reason to believe an unduly lenient sentence has been passed they can ask the Court of Appeal to review the sentence.
A decision on whether the sentence will be looked at again will be made by mid-March.
Why does it take the The Attorney General’s Office to do something because the judges is out of touch with sentences?
Essentially, the Attorney General is the most senior prosecuting authority in the country he or she superintends the DPP. As a judicial decision has been made which the public find unacceptable in its leniency, representations have been made to the Attorney who, in this instance, then assumes a judicial role by judicially reviewing the decision of a judge. The nature of judicial review is not that it should be capable of overturning the initial decision but rather to refer it back to the initial decisionmaking body, in this case the judiciary, to reconsider and look again afresh at their decision to see whether it was reasonable and proportionate and if not, they have have authority to amend the decision.
Well done folks to everyone who hit gov.uk, time they listened, real people with real concerns that’s who the law should protect. Not that thing cannot put it down but it can be sent down!!
WONDERFUL news hopefully it won’t just be looking into hopefully this will result in this sick individual getting locked up and key thrown away !!
Hopefully he will get a long prison sentence, thank you IE for the update.
Well wont be long but could be a thing..
Bloody judges completely out of touch sometimes..
I wonder if the judge would be so soft on his sentence if the children he’d targeted were his children/grandchildren? Disgraceful sentence. Let’s hope he (Samuel) gets what he deserves properly.
About time, but as others have said its the lily livered magistrates who fail to give good and prope sentences in the first place.
What do they actually get paid for and they really need to take a look at the real world for once.
re. “magistrates who fail to give good and prope sentences…What do they actually get paid for…”
Just FYI..
From: https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/can-you-be-a-magistrate
Pay and allowances
Magistrates are not paid, (but many employers allow their employees time off with pay.)
(in this case, it was a Judge, not a Magistrate)
what is to look into this conviction speaks for itself when will judges be held to account or at least question the sentences they are allowed to impose it’s all just crass .
I am sure that if he does ever go to prison, the inmates will really welcome this pretty little boy. They will think that Christmas has come early, ha ha.