Justice for retired PD Finn

Dear Attorney General,

I am writing to you in relation to the sentence imposed by Bromley Magistrates Court in the case of the sixteen year old convicted of stabbing Police Dog Finn and Police Constable Dave Wardell, of Hertfordshire Constabulary.  I am aware that you have  powers to review whether a sentence is unduly lenient and to refer it to the Court of Appeal under section 35 &36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I believe that this case is meritorious of such a review and the sentence is entirely inappropriate. This case has attracted considerable public and media interest and I would request that if this case falls outside your review powers that you instruct a review of the handling of the case, including the decision to have sentencing in the Magistrates Court. Lessons must be learned and given the dangerous role of policing, I would ask that your influence is brought to bear to ensure the appropriate review. 

The sixteen year old defendant was convicted of four offences in connection with with the attack on PC Wardell and PD Finn. The defendant was suspected of having committed a robbery and was approached by the officer and PD Finn. The defendant subsequently stabbed PD Finn several times with an 12 inch knife that he was carrying and then the suspect cut PC Wardell's hands.  Once arrested, the defendant was found to be in possession of an imitation firearm and the 12 inch knife, he was convicted of possession of both of these weapons as well as criminal damage to PD Finn and ABH against PC Wardell. 

The sentencing of the defendant on the 6th June 2017 to four months in a detention centre is extremely lenient and specifically I believe failed to reflect the following factors which relate both to the specific case and wider public policy issues. 

• The real risks posed to the public by the carriage of knives, especially one of this size.    

• The actual violent use of the knife, which should always be especially punished by a court. In this case the attack was particularly savage , PD Finn nearly died after being brutally attacked.   

• Possession of an imitation firearm is a particularly serious offence. Imitation firearms are used to enable serious crime and intimidation and the court should reflect this in sentencing as a deterrent to their carriage.   

• Possessing an imitation firearm also poses real risks for police officers who have to respond to incidents where they are brandished or seen, officers take real personal risks and armed officers are placed in extremely vulnerable positions having to decide, often in a split second if the firearm is real. The discharge by armed officers of their firearms is hugely consequential on suspects, the officer and community relations. The sentencing judge appears not to have reflected in the  sentencing the need to deter carriage and properly punish the defendant.  

• Police officers and police dogs are required to place themselves in harms way to protect the public, they deserve especial protection from the law. Indeed, following assaults on police officers, let alone the savage attack on PD Finn, sentencing should reflect the need to deter suspects assaulting officers and violently resisting arrest. The role of sentencing in deterring crime and protecting vulnerable persons appears to have been overlooked.    

• The impact of this crime on PD Finn and PC Wardell is clearly immense. There is a unique bond between a police dog and their handler, forged by their shared life at home and work and the dangers they face together. PD Finn was seriously injured and subsequently retired. Whilst I do not see PD Finn as property as such, it is worth noting the cost of selecting, training and maintaining police dogs to the public purse and therefore an attack on them has significant financial implications. 

Finally, there is a groundswell of opinion that the sentence delivered to the defendant who attacked PD Finn and PC Wardell was wholly inadequate. The criminal justice system must command public confidence and this lenient sentence has eroded confidence in the criminal justice system.

If on the facts of this case, you cannot refer the matter to the Court of Appeal for review because of the mode of trial, I believe lessons need learned as to why sentencing in this matter was not at the Crown Court as opposed to a magistrates court. The wholly inadequate sentence in this case has caused huge distress to the policing family, animal lovers and the wider public whose trust and confidence in the criminal justice system has been damaged.