Prison tariffs for looters and those using Facebook to incite rioting during August disturbance appropriate, say senior judges

Lengthy prison sentences imposed on youths who used Facebook to incite riots and on offenders who took part in looting have been upheld by the court of appeal.

But three men who pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods during the disturbances in August had their prison terms halved by the panel of senior judges.

Addressing the overall context of the riots and the "abuse of modern technology", the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, said: "The level of lawlessness was shocking and wholly inexcusable. The imposition of severe sentences, intended to provide both punishment and deterrence, must follow.

"The context hugely aggravates the seriousness of each individual offence … the sheer numbers involved may have led some of the offenders to believe that they were untouchable and would escape detection."

The ruling by the three judges, Lord Judge, Lord Thomas and Lord Leveson, sets a clear benchmark for future appeals against riot sentences. Participation in a riot, the judges warned, was a severely aggravating factor; courts should sentence offenders to significantly longer periods in prison than if individual offences had been committed in isolation.

It was right, therefore, they added, that sentences should have been "beyond the range in the guidelines for conventional offending". Sentences should also be designed to deter others from criminal activity.

Two young men, Jordan Blackshaw, 21, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, who had posted invitations to riots on their Facebook pages, saw their four-year sentences confirmed by the court.

The suggestion that their online postings were only jokes were dismissed by the court. Blackshaw, it was said, "believed that the offences he was inciting would happen". Sutcliffe-Keenan's "Warrington Riots" webpage was a deliberate action and certainly no joke, the lord chief justice observed.

"When dealing with these two appeals, we are conscious that in the end no actual harm in the streets of Northwich and Warrington actually occurred." But, he added, "decent citizens" were appalled by what they read.

The judge added: "Modern technology has done away with the need for such direct personal communication. It can all be done through Facebook or other social media. In other words, the abuse of modern technology for criminal purposes extends to and includes incitement of very many people by a single step.

"It is a sinister aspect of these cases that modern technology almost certainly assisted rioters in other places to organise the rapid movement and congregation of disorderly groups in new and unpoliced areas."

Lord Judge has repeatedly identified "misuse of modern technology" as a threat. In May, launching a report on superinjunctions, he condemned the way in which Twitter users defied court orders to "peddle lies". Last year he warned that the jury system was in danger of being undermined through "misuse of the internet" by jurors to research cases or communicate on social media sites. His views reflect a wider debate about how far electronic media should be subject to traditional laws on libel and free speech.

In respect of burglaries committed during the street violence, Lord Judge found none of the five appeals merited reductions in sentence.

The prison and youth detention terms handed down by courts in London and Manchester to Hassan Halloway, Enrico Vanasco, Michael Gillespie-Doyle, Hassan Koyuncu and Lorriane McGrane – ranging from four years and eight months to one year – were all confirmed.

Sentences given in three cases of handling stolen goods, involving Stephen Craven, David Beswick and Stephen Carter, were, however, reduced – a signal, perhaps, that there had been a degree of judicial over-reaction in sentencing those involved in more peripheral cases.

The court of appeal noted: "Each [of these handling cases] represents opportunistic involvement after the burglaries had occurred and although in close proximity to the scenes of the disorder, the appellants did not participate or contribute to them. The sentences must recognise these distinctions."

The written judgment makes clear that "this is not a new-found sentencing policy". It refers to decisions given following a riot in Cambridge 41 years ago.

That 1970 judgment, quoted at length, says: "When there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives. It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is broken."

The breakdown in law and order in August was more serious than the racial violence that ravaged Bradford in 2001, the three appeal court judges implied, because it was more widespread

Commenting on the judgment, Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: "While only those sitting in court know the full details of individual cases, it is difficult to understand why the court of appeal upheld exceptionally heavy sentences which will blight the lives of young men, some of whom appear to have acted stupidly rather than violently.

"No one could condone the damage and distress caused by the riots but it is a matter of regret that the court of appeal did not choose to open the way to proportionate sentences that would have given scope to make amends to victims and reflect public support for restorative justice."