Attorney General’s decision not to order a review of drunken thug’s ‘lenient’ sentence for killing a banking boss in attack in London’s West End is branded ‘morally wrong’ after more than 50,000 had signed a petition demanding a rethink

• Steven Allan attacked Paul Mason, a banking boss, outside The Ivy Club 

The Attorney General’s decision not to order a review of a drunken thug’s sentence for killing an international banker has been branded ‘morally wrong’ by the victim’s family.

Steven Allan attacked Paul Mason, a boss at Qatar National Bank, in the street outside The Ivy Club in London’s West End in December 2020.

The 35-year-old electrician punched Mr Mason, 52, three times in the mistaken belief he had stolen a mobile phone belonging to his friend.

The incident, captured on CCTV, took just 12 seconds but left Mr Mason with serious head injuries from which he died six months later.

Allan, from Hook in Hampshire, was sentenced last month to three years and nine months in jail after admitting manslaughter but being cleared of murder after a trial.

More than 50,000 people had signed an online petition, set up by Mr Mason’s sister Rachel, when it was revealed Allan might only serve just over a year in prison due to deductions.

They demanded a review of Allan’s ‘unduly lenient’ sentence and an overhaul of the UK’s sentencing guidelines.

But Attorney General Victoria Prentis’s office has decided not to refer Allan’s sentence to the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme.

Rachel branded the decision ‘morally wrong’ and claimed it ‘sets a deeply concerning precedent for future sentences for those that kill people’.

Labour’s Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, expressed her ‘disappointment and disbelief’ at the decision and demanded Government action for bereaved families.

Solicitor General Michael Tomlinson, one of the Government’s law officers, acknowledged there were ‘strong feelings’ over the ‘unprovoked and violent attack’ on Mr Mason.

But he stressed the threshold for a sentencing review was not met in Allan’s case.

Paul Mason, a boss at Qatar National Bank, pictured with his sister Rachel. He was attacked in the street outside The Ivy Club in London’s West End in December 2020

Steven Allan punched Mr Mason, 52, three times in the mistaken belief he had stolen a mobile phone belonging to his friend

More than 50,000 people had signed an online petition, set up by Mr Mason’s sister Rachel, after it was revealed Allan might only serve just over a year in prison due to deductions

Labour’s Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, expressed her ‘disappointment and disbelief’ at the decision not to refer the sentence for review

During a trial at the Old Bailey, a jury heard that Mr Mason did not react with any violence or aggression and had attempted to ‘turn the other cheek’ and walk away when approached by Allan.

When Allan delivered an upper cut, Mr Mason was ‘poleaxed’, flew back and landed on his back with his head hitting the pavement.

The Mason family was struck by another tragedy when Paul’s older brother Simon, a vulnerable adult, took an overdose three months after Paul’s death.

Rachel said Simon ‘could not cope with the killing of his little brother’ and was ‘consumed by trauma and grief’.

Tens of thousands of supporters signed a Change.org petition set up by Rachel following Allan’s sentencing last month.

In an update on the website, Rachel confirmed the Attorney General was not referring Allan’s sentencing for a review.

She posted today: ‘Thank you so much for all your comments of support and disgust at this sentence and of course for signing the petition.

‘We have heard from the Attorney Generals office and they DO NOT consider this sentence unduly lenient and will not be referring to the court of appeal.

‘I’ve struggled to find the words to describe how morally wrong this is and how alarming this is as it sets a deeply concerning precedent for future sentences for those that kill people.

‘What kind of society are we living in that values human life so little?

‘We are awaiting the CPS to comment and working out our next steps with this update.’

The ULS scheme allows victims of crime, their families, prosecutors or members of the public to ask for sentences to be reviewed if they believe them to be too low.

The Attorney General can ask the Court of Appeal to review a sentence under the scheme if she considers the sentence might be unduly lenient.

Ms Thornberry said: ‘The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme represented the last hope of true justice for Paul Mason’s friends and family.

‘I share the disappointment and disbelief that they will no doubt feel today that the Government has denied them a review of his killer’s sentence.

‘But this is not an isolated case. Last year, of all the manslaughter cases submitted to ministers under the scheme, only one in ten was referred by them to the Court of Appeal.

‘It is appalling that so many bereaved families who have been let down once by the courts are being let down for a second time by the Government, when all they want and deserve is justice for their loved ones.’

In a statement provided to MailOnline, Mr Tomlinson said: ‘Paul Mason was the innocent victim of an unprovoked and violent attack.

‘His life was tragically taken away by Steven Allan – simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

‘I am aware of the strong feelings surrounding this case and it was no surprise that I received several requests under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme to consider Steven Allan’s sentence.

‘My duty as a Law Officer in considering whether sentences may be unduly lenient is to act independently of government, even when it is not easy or popular.

‘Having received detailed legal advice and considered the issues raised very carefully, I have concluded Steven Allan’s sentence cannot properly be referred to the Court of Appeal.

‘Such a referral can only be made if the legal test is met, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime or the emotions the offending may evoke. The threshold for referral is a high one, and that was not met in this case.

‘The test is only met if the sentencing judge made a gross error or imposed a sentence outside the range reasonably available in the circumstances of the offending.

‘As a Law Officer, I only have the authority to review the sentence result and determine whether it should be referred to the Court of Appeal. It is not in my jurisdiction to amend the sentencing guidelines.

‘I was deeply saddened by this case, and I would like to express my heartfelt sympathies to Paul Mason’s family and friends.’

Source: Read Full Article