Read their website if you want to be drowned with pseudo business speak about customers and the business plan and ponder why on earth such a ridiculously useless body is allowed to absorb tax payers money.

http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/docs/Business_Plan_2008-2009.pdf

Many of the complaints that we receive relate to either the
decision of a Judicial Office Holder or the manner in which
a case has been handled. These are matters that we
cannot deal with. To try to address this problem we are
improving the information that we provide on our website
about the issues that we can deal with.

As for judges discretion on sentencing. I am strongly in favour of discretion and totally opposed to mandatory sentencing.

However a crucial requirement of law is that it be predictable and rational.

We should be clearly able to explain any sentence once we look clearly at the circumstances of an offence.

To that end we need objective criteria principally of aggravating or mitigating features of the offence and for the offender.

Thus if the final sentence has a discretionary element to it it is not random but perfectly explicable to criteria themselves having an ancient legal pedigree.

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/sgc_magistrates_guidelines_including_update_1_%202%20_3_web.pdf

The most extensive sentencing guidelines are on cd ROM.

The bench Books Blackstones and Archbolds also give extensive sentencing guidelines with reference to mitigating and aggravating factors.

Nowhere does any of the literature refer to relious devotion per se as a mitigating factor.

N addition the sentencing guidelines give guideline cases where we can see tarrifs given for offences with similar fact patterns.

The guideline cases here are;

Graham 1993 a woman hit another in a restaurant who called her names and she received black eyes and a swollen nose. She was sentenced to 6 months later reduced to one month.

Marples 1998 involved an argument in a taxi queue where a man was punched in the nose breaking it. He received 4 months.

This case as the man was punched at least twice breaking his jaw (never mild as Cherie claimed as the force required to break a jaw is considerable) the second time as the victim appeared to try to make peace I would think is a standard sentence of 5-6 months.

I see nothing in this case that justifies the assailant Miah receiving a non-custodial sentence.

Generally a significant discount on sentence (25-30%) is granted for an early admission of guilt. Not only does this show an acceptance of culpability and a degree of contrition it also saves extensive court time and cost.

Again Cherie Blair’s argument that Shamso Miah’s piety would lead him to understand that he had done wrong, falls flat.

If that had been the case he would have pled guilty saving the court the time and cost of having to prove him guilty.

He did not deserve any discount on tarrif.

In the case of excessively lenient or unduly harsh sentences a reference can be made by the Attorney General to the court of Appeal to alter the sentence.

This has happened recently in the case of the Reading householder sentenced to jail for GBH for protecting his family when they were threatened with death. The AG correctly put emphasis on the partial defence of extreme provocation which the original trial judge had ignored.

The psychological stress associated with monotheism could also be a factor contributing to delinquent behaviour.

I think that you do have expectations of people’s behaviour according to their religion

If the perceptions are that religious people are less criminally incliened, then tose perceptions would be wrong. Borne out if you compare religious people’s representation in represented in prisons when compared to non religious people compared to their respective population levels.

Unlikely (on both counts).