I agree that the remarks were crass and I amazed that the word "courage" was used ! However, an appropriate community sentence is within the sentencing framework for this offence and the judge cannot necessarily be faulted for imposing one even if another judge might not. As for sentencing remarks, there is a requirement (CJA 2003 s174) to explain the reasons for and the effect of a sentence. Having said that, most defendants only want to know the "bottom line." so it is best to keep remarks (a) short and (b) uncontroversial. Also, having announced sentence, there are definitely instances where the sooner the defendant is out of the courtroom the better.

It's gratifying to see a Judge put himself at risk from the press, because he feels it is the right thing to do.

It would help if we didn't treat the quality of physical courage as if it were a moral virtue. The simple fact of the matter is that many people perform risky actions without letting fear deter them. These people might be doing good things or bad things, but the courage that allows them, say, to run into a burning building to save someone or to break into another person's house to rob it is one and the same. Is this distinction more difficult to grasp now that our society has become so intensively militarised ("our" warriors are brave heroes, "theirs" are cowardly murderers)? I don't know. But it would be more honest to try to keep this distinction between physical courage and moral courage in mind. It's the judge in this case who showed the latter.

It might take courage to go and burgle a big house, like a judge's house or a politician's mansion. Kicking in the door, or window, in your own backyard is exploitative predatory cowardice.

This is the first balanced report i've read of the events which unfolded to which few of us can claim to have heard for ourselfs, and to my mind have been jumped on by a lazy media. Thank you.

The Judge is encouraging criminal behaviour and is disgusting .I bet he would sing a different tune if it was his house that was burgled.

very good article. deeply disappointed by the vast array of news outlets that reported this so hysterically. well done for shining some light on this.

Why bother with prison? There are enough social housing estates to which wrong-doers may be consigned for all sorts of re-hab.
Will be throughly surprised if this convicted defendant hails from a community located in the leafy suburbs or a mansion in millionaires' row.
This sort of public housing ghetto is designed to keep people in. The golden private ghetto is designed to keep people, apart from the deserving rich, out.
Let's not be judgmental. This bewigged individual is using his noddle.

Obiter Dickta

His Honour Judge Bowers has caused a furore, and the press are enjoying a feeding frenzy concerning his comments about burglary and bravery.

Without a transcript, we do not know precisely what he said, and more importantly, the special context of his remarks. Sentencing comments do have a dual role – a message to the public about the crime – and a message to the offender about their behaviour and how it impacts on society. It may be that Judge Bowers on this occasion, has got the balance wrong, or misjudged his audience.

Contrary to the press reporting, Judge Bowers’ comments in no way condoned burglary, nor applauded a perpetrator. Judge Bowers is known as a resolute sentencer and a mile from a soft touch. His reputation is for sound common sense and safe, realistic judgment.

It is likely that the purpose of this part of his sentencing remarks was aimed specifically at Richard Rochford, sending this message to him:- ‘if you have the courage/capacity to commit a heinous crime like this, you should have the courage/capacity to change your ways’.

Whilst society expects most offenders to self-determine their rehabilitation, my thirty three years of experience of criminal justice says otherwise. One of the most testing and difficult changes for a re-offender is the decision to quit. Offending frequently becomes a lifestyle for criminals, trapped by weakness, insignificance, life experience, drug dependence or peer group. Such offenders stand little chance of escape from crime. Their criminal lifestyle is self-perpetuating, whilst society looks on – administering deserved punishment but without offering solutions.

This is why re-offending in a prison-obsessed society is so high. It is also why on the whole, prisons cannot work. Being confined to a cell, exercising and socialising with other criminals is not a good recipe to bring about change. Community sentences attempt to address this, and have some success – certainly better than incarceration with other offenders. Britain has an unusually high prison population, which over many decades, has not reduced offending. For that, one needs to look to other social measures.

I sense that the message Judge Bowers wanted to convey was that as this particular offender was clearly not daunted by the sheer risk of committing the crime, he should have sufficient courage to tackle the hazardous and testing task of his own rehabilitation. In speaking about courage, Judge Bowers sought to harness Rochford’s strengths for ‘good’ rather than ‘evil’ – for rehabilitation rather than re-offending. This is a sensible message to an offender. But perhaps it was too subtle for the media to grasp?

When the press has moved on to new news, and politicians have ceased to posture, perhaps then we can explore the real debate that Judge Bowers’ starting pistol has triggered. What is the true role for prison, why does it not provide sufficient benefits for the public, and how can it be made to work? It is notable that, in the aftermath of Judge Bowers’ remarks, no one seems willing to seize that particular nettle.

It is hard to comment on the sentencing decision without knowing more but it certainly looks, at first glance, a perfectly sensible one. I agree that the (sometimes wilful) misreporting of sentences and judicial statements is worryingly and disgracefully common. However, that is why judges are exhorted to exercise care over what they say and encouraged to recognise that they have a responsibility for ensuring that respect for the justice system is not undermined. If by saying things that are, to use your terminology, "strange", "unfortunate" and "obtuse" the good sense of the outcome is obscured some criticism of the judge does seem appropriate.

It’s incredibly unfortunate that this occurred. In my mind, it’s clear that the underlying desire was not to conflate the actions of the burglar with those of valiant rescuers. For me, the context suggests that it was not ‘courage’ in the sense of valour and bravery but in the sense of cheek and impudence. Of course, a good grasp of language and oratory seems to be vital to the profession but it’s inevitable that individuals will occasionally select the wrong words or inadvertently skip a vital qualifier when speech is spontaneous. It’s entirely speculative but I would guess that the addition of “I wouldn’t have the nerve” was intended to give clarification of intent since ‘nerve’ is often used in a scathing fashion.

Sadly, human fallibility and the number of judges mean that it’s only a matter of time before the media gets an example to pounce upon.

Importantly, the original article cited demonstrates that the judge did give consideration to the victims by stating that they deal with the ramifications “for months and months and sometimes years, they never recover.” It may seem paltry to some but it does demonstrate that the victims were not considered an irrelevancy as some would portray it.

Additionally, the burglar asked for two more burglaries and an attempted burglary to be taken into account then managed to break free of drugs and acquire a job within a short window of time. My unqualified opinion is irrelevant (so are the opinions of most people outraged about this) but I think that justifies Judge Bowers taking an ‘extraordinary chance,’ especially when backed up by reference to imprisonment upon re-offense.

What would prison have achieved in this case beyond increasing the probability of future victims and ruining a chance of character development? I cannot imagine the sense of violation past victims suffered but I don’t believe their emotional needs can come at the expense of greater risks to others. The quote from Rochford in the Daily Mirror compounds my belief that it was right.

I'm truly sick of the 'bread and water' brigade frothing at the mouth and demanding empirically illiterate policies whenever the chance is presented, gladly wielding victims (which there'd be more of if we used their approach), whether they consent or not, as their justification.

To mention quotes you are about to state could be misunderstood, that in itself should be sufficient, note to self, not to make the statement, surely.

Words of admonishment or of encouragement are likely to have little or no effect. Indeed, one can wonder why such remarks are made.

Oh come on -- it must be the best part of being a judge (apart from the huge salary, snazzy wigs, servants and palatial dwellings).