//Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to these judges sitting in their ivory towers.A disgusting outcome.//
You need to realise, Danny, that the blame for what you consider an inadequate sentence lies squarely with the Sentencing Guidelines issued by the (allegedly) independent Sentencing Council. These four were sentenced in the Youth Court. I won’t go into great detail but the sentencing guidelines for the Youth Court make it virtually impossible for young people to be committed to custody unless they have committed either a single “grave” offence (of which Affray is not one) or a large number of less serious offences. If you read the report you will see the District Judge's continued references to custody being an absolute last resort for young people and this is the overriding theme for the sentencing of young people. The default is a referral order and that is what was imposed.
So it is nothing to do with judges “sitting in ivory towers”. All sentencers (judges, District Judges and magistrates) are bound by law to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. If they fail to do so without justification an appeal against sentence will almost certainly succeed.
For what it’s worth I believe the Youth Justice system in the UK is hopelessly flawed in principle. It places far too much emphasis on the welfare of the criminal and far too little on that of the victims. It does nobody any good – least of all the victims – but I also in the long term does the defendants no good as it leads them to believe from an early age that consequences of their actions are too trivial to worry about. But the fault for that does not lie with the judiciary.
If you fancy a bit of light reading, here’s the Sentencing Council’s general principles on sentencing children and young people:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/sentencing-children-and-young-people/
To save you pawing through it (it’s not really light reading but contains some interesting principles) here’s the first paragraph:
1.1 When sentencing children or young people (those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt) a court must have regard to:
• the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent offending by children and young people); and
• the welfare of the child or young person.
No mention of victims or the wider public, you notice, other than the wooly aim “to prevent offending”.