Concurrent sentencing

VO

Read in the Times this morning where some scumbag was given a concurrent 3 year sentence for "booting" a man in the head while his accomplice robbed his mobile phone. He also received a 2 year concurrent sentence for an attempted robbery. He is currenlty serving a 7 year sentence for a "vicious " assault on a Norwegian tourist which left him with severe head injuries.

This guy is obviously a danger to the public and needs to be removed permanently from the streets yet Judge Delahunt in his/her infinite wisdom dishes out concurrent sentences. I have a numebr of questions in relation to this which someone may be able to answer.

What is the pupose of a concurrent sentence?

In what way does it act as a punishment or deterrent?

Why do our judges not use consecutive sentencing when criminals commit repeat offences?

Perhaps someone could explain to me the peculiar way in which our judiciary make these decisions because for the life of me I cannot understand it. It seems to me that if you commit a crime you should go out and commit as many as possible in the timeframe between getting caught and coming before the courts as you will get concurrent sentences no matter what.

McCrack

Offences commited by a person on bail, the Judge has no discretion to impose cuncurrent sentences and must impose consecutive, S11 Criminal Justice Act 1984 as amended by S10 Bail Act 1997.

Otherwise if there are a few offences the tendency is to impose cuncurrent. I suppose the mentality behind is reducing pressure on the prison service and offering an offender some light at the end of it.

I'm not justifying it but explaining the reasoning.