Are we on about judges now or your gruds?

I'd have thought it'd generally be a good idea if the trial judge, who sat through the presentation of all the evidence, was also in place for sentencing.

If Ben Cockayne didn't go to prison for his assault then it would have been grossly unfair for Pryce to be imprisoned based on the details that have emerged.

I still think a system where individuals decide sentences is basically flawed and gives an unacceptable inequality in decisions.

Individuals who follow guidelines put in place by a vast legal concensus. Individuals who can be challenged at appeal if their judgement is seen to be outside normal established guidlines. Ultimately a decision if contentious can be decided by a panel of judges, law Lords or the European Court.

That only applies if they are convicted following a trial. When its a guilty plea the Judge/Magistrates that sentence hear all the evidence that was presented at the earlier hearing. It may be preferable for the same Judge/Magistrates to carry out sentencing but the logistics of making that happen every time would be a nightmare.

I think rather too much is being made of the original judge's comments. Judge's/Magistrates are required to give an indication of the sentencing options being considered before adjourning for reports. In particular they must state whether custody is being considered. The Judge/Magistrates that actually sentence are not supposed to impose a sentence that is more severe than that indicated, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

It may well be the case that the original Judge was actual leaning towards community sentences but did not want to restrict his options in case the probation reports were negative.

Whats the reason for the 4 week gap between the judgement and the sentancing?

I would guess at pre-sentencing reports, etc, so the judge could fully consider the sort of people he was dealing with. Stuff like that will have an impact on the sentence handed down.

To allow for the Probation service to interview the defendents and carry out an assessment. They look at things such as the degree of remorse, likelihood of reoffending, factors affecting offending such as drink or drugs. They also assess the defendants suitability for various community sentences. They usually will recommend which community sentences are the most suitable but these recommendations are not binding. They usually take a bit longer in cases of domestic violense.

What if a defendant (not necessarily in this case but just generally) was sat there smirking or looking at witnesses in a threatening manner throughout their trial? I'd like to think that such court demeanour was taken into account when it came to sentencing and I'd imagine that would be best achieved by the trial judge. Just a layman's point of view.

It makes you think that Bailey and Walker were either unlucky or did something worse than Mr Cockayne

If a defendant was convicted following a trial he/she would be sentenced by the trial judge.

.....as had already been explained further up the thread.

So they could track down Leon?

As I said earlier it was a general comment but even where there is a gap between trial and sentencing (for pre- sentencing reports etc) I would still imagine that wherever possible it would be preferable for the trial judge to follow the case through to sentencing.