Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Stuart Hall
30 Answers
The Attorney General has referred Hall's sentence of 15 months, for 14 indecent assaults on girls, to the Court of Appeal. No comment so far on AB, so is nobody surprised? What do you think he should get now? I think 3 years is in order, his guilty pleas notwithstanding
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.read the sentencing remarks here:-
http:// www.jud iciary. gov.uk/ Resourc es/JCO/ Documen ts/Judg ments/s tuart-h all-sen tencing -remark s-17062 013.pdf
obviously a lenient sentence sends all the wrong messages - and yet the reasons were properly explained, including reference to 2 court of appeal decisions on historic cases, and the age of the perpetrator.
http://
obviously a lenient sentence sends all the wrong messages - and yet the reasons were properly explained, including reference to 2 court of appeal decisions on historic cases, and the age of the perpetrator.
Just as an aside ...
I notice how often it is women who casually refer to genital mutilation of male offenders.
so when women are convicted of sexual offences, should they be subjected to a full hysterectomy or just have their clitoris chopped off?
Just wondering, in the interests of fairness and equality.
I notice how often it is women who casually refer to genital mutilation of male offenders.
so when women are convicted of sexual offences, should they be subjected to a full hysterectomy or just have their clitoris chopped off?
Just wondering, in the interests of fairness and equality.
A count of rape was left on the file. That means that the man is not acquitted. But the count "is not to be proceeded with without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal". This is normally done when the defendant is convicted of serious offences and there is a count for some minor one which he indicates he is not having. Rather than having him enter a not guilty plea and that being accepted or having a trial on it, the prosecution ask for it be left on the file. In this case the complainant told the prosecution that she was happy for the rape count not to be tried. If she changed her mind, the prosecution could seek leave to have it tried.
The judge felt bound by the law at the time the offences were committed. The then maximum for the offence was 2 years, discounted by the plea of guilty. This overlooks the fact that there was not one offence, but fourteen, and a pattern of behaviour lasting years. The judge could have made sentences on each count consecutive or made a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences. That way the sentence overall would reflect the gravity of the criminal behaviour.
The judge felt bound by the law at the time the offences were committed. The then maximum for the offence was 2 years, discounted by the plea of guilty. This overlooks the fact that there was not one offence, but fourteen, and a pattern of behaviour lasting years. The judge could have made sentences on each count consecutive or made a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences. That way the sentence overall would reflect the gravity of the criminal behaviour.
More serious crimes? Of course there are more serious crimes, but indecent assault is quite serious, which is why it is triable by a jury. This man, like so many, was able to go on committing crimes because the law then protected him. It is certain that he knew that, otherwise he would not have risked it.
The law protected him, not because he was famous or because complainants would never be believed, but because it required every sexual offence to be corroborated. The law on corroboration became so complicated that Lord Diplock, a judge in the highest court in the land, said, in 1973, that any trial judge's direction to the jury on it "bordered on unintelligible to the ordinary person" It was rooted in the old belief that a woman would allege rape or sexual assault to protect her reputation or for no reason at all. It required the jury to be told that they should not convict unless they found that there was independent evidence (such as injuries ) which tended to prove the crime.
The rule was abolished in 1994. The thinking behind it, however, persisted for some years in the minds of police officers and even prosecutors.
The law protected him, not because he was famous or because complainants would never be believed, but because it required every sexual offence to be corroborated. The law on corroboration became so complicated that Lord Diplock, a judge in the highest court in the land, said, in 1973, that any trial judge's direction to the jury on it "bordered on unintelligible to the ordinary person" It was rooted in the old belief that a woman would allege rape or sexual assault to protect her reputation or for no reason at all. It required the jury to be told that they should not convict unless they found that there was independent evidence (such as injuries ) which tended to prove the crime.
The rule was abolished in 1994. The thinking behind it, however, persisted for some years in the minds of police officers and even prosecutors.