Husband of Jailed Grandmother Denied Parole Slams ‘Two-Tier’ Justice System: “The Mind Boggles”

The husband of a grandmother jailed for social media posts made during last summer’s Southport riots has strongly criticized Britain’s “two-tier” justice system after his wife was denied parole. Julie Sweeney, 53, remains behind bars despite other rioters being released under the Labour government’s new “early release scheme.”

Sweeney was sentenced last June for posting inflammatory comments on social media, including a message that mosques should be blown up in response to the deaths of three young girls in Southport. Her comments, deemed a threat to kill, led to her conviction and subsequent imprisonment. Although originally eligible for parole three months into her sentence, Sweeney’s eligibility was reconsidered due to the nature of her post, and she was deemed unsuitable for early release.

Sweeney’s husband, David, expressed his disbelief at the decision to deny her parole, particularly as she spent Christmas behind bars. “The mind boggles,” he said. He attributed his wife’s actions to an emotional breakdown and strongly denied that she was racist. “It’s ridiculous. Alright, she posted what she posted but she had a mental breakdown. Those three girls who were killed, we have three granddaughters and it really got to her,” he explained in an interview with The Telegraph.

The controversial post was made in a Kidsgrove community group on Facebook, where Sweeney reacted angrily to an image of people cleaning up after the riots. Her message, which stated, “Don’t protect the mosques. Blow the mosques up with the adults in it,” was flagged by a group member, leading to her arrest.

When taken into custody, Sweeney, who also serves as her husband’s full-time carer, admitted that her post was unacceptable but explained that she had acted out of anger and did not intend to make people fearful. “I’m not being rude, but there are a lot of people saying it,” she told the officers.

Judge Steven Everett, who sentenced Sweeney at Chester Crown Court, labeled her a “keyboard warrior” and emphasized that even people like her needed to be punished. However, the decision to deny her pre-Christmas parole has sparked widespread criticism, especially given that other rioters convicted of racism and harassment have been freed.

The release of individuals such as Philip Hoban, a “paedophile hunter” convicted of abusing Pro-Palestinian protestors, and Jordan Plain, who was jailed for racially aggravated harassment, has fueled the debate about the fairness of the early release scheme. Both Hoban and Plain served just a fraction of their sentences after being released under the new scheme.

Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, commented, “It’s ridiculous that Julie has been placed in the same category as prisoners who’ve been convicted of serious offences, including homicide. It shouldn’t include someone who’s been found guilty of saying something unsavoury on social media.”

As public outrage grows, the debate over what constitutes a fair and consistent justice system in Britain continues.