Stuart Hall Receives 15 Month Sentence - Fair Or Unfair?

[LazyGun]

http://news.sky.com/story/1104682/stuart-hall-jailed-for-sex-attacks-on-girls

I had thought he might get slightly longer, but his age and the nature of the offences have played a part in the judges sentence, I imagine...

[2sp_]

Poor man, suffering sleepless nights and depression since his arrest...

More the thought of exposure for what he is and punishment for his crimes, than guilt over what he did to those poor girls.

[mikey4444]

It would seem about right to me as well. His public life is now in ruins.

It would be interesting to consider what would have happened if Saville hadn't died when he did, as we would almost certainly be discussing him rather than Hall.

[FredPuli43]

Quite, mikey, and Hall, and the rest,would never have been arrested but for the scandal over Saville. And he would not have been exposed but for his dying, because our absurd laws on defamation would have stopped it.

[jno]

it's not just the law, though. People did report Savile's crimes, and were ignored. And it seems some parents were aware of Hall's and did nothing about it, which I find extraordinary.

[Mrsspagnoli57]

jno-re- parents doing nothing-I find that extraordinary too.

[FredPuli43]

True, but when there were complaints, the final word would have been that nobody dared publish the report of an aggrieved individual who, ignored by the police and a self-preserving coterie in the entertainment business, told anyone. That was where defamation law came into it.

Nobody dared publish information they did have, in any programme, until Saville was dead and could not sue.Once they could, and did, the floodgates opened and the police were kicked into action. Nobody could sue then because you can't sue on the basis only that someone has been arrested

[brandyrose]

I would have liked to see him get a minimum of 4 years. I gather they may look at the length of sentence as there have been a number of complaints.

Children matter and I wondered about his age but it came across to me (only a personal view) that it was about the deal and when he confessed it was probably negotiated around that but I do think he was rightly up against it and he knew it. Game over. He is self-interested and he will have had that in mind more than helping victims and worrying about them giving evidence in court. He is ruthless. It looked pretty bad that they had to bring his Charity work into it - he'll use anything. I hope they do reconsider and give him a min of 4 years because he was exploiting and abusing children alot.

[jake-the-peg]

There's a rather important point that was made on radio 4 yesterday evening.

You can't have retrospective prosecution - prosecuting someone under laws that subsequently came into force and so Hall had to be sentenced under the laws in force at the time.

They had a maximum of 2 years for those offences then - they have since become much more serious.

The judge clearly decided that these crimes were very serious - for this offence but not the most serious that could be imagined and set a starting point of 20 months before applying the discount for the guilty plea.

Bearing this in mind it sounds about the right sentence give or take a month or two

[sandyRoe]

I wonder did the journalists on Private Eye ever come across any of the allegations against Savile or Hall? If they did what stopped them from publishing?

[FredPuli43]

He may have been fortunate that the count of rape was left on the file, not to proceeded with without leave of the Court or the Court of Appeal.Hall's plea, if entered, of not guilty to that was not accepted; he was not acquitted of it.

Counsel would never normally leave a count of rape on the file , unless the man was pleading guilty to another rape or rapes or to a more serious offence, such as murder arising in the same incident. So it must be that he thought it was borderline whether he'd get home on it for some reason and it was not worth putting the complainant through a trial.

With some 14 offences over a long period; a history of this behaviour; he plainly could have got more . The judge started at 2 years, after all, which is said to be the maximum for one under the law before the new Act (2003), and only reduced that for the plea of guilty. It still seems on the light side.

[FredPuli43]

Even Private Eye knows the law of libel, Sandy. Some would say the magazine knows it better than most! They would be alleging a crime. If you allege criminal acts such as fraud, in an ordinary action, you can only do so with compelling evidence to a higher standard than normal, being satisfied that all documents in support are perfectly genuine and not misleading, for example.

In libel, the burden of proof is, de facto, on the defendant. You'd only be safe if the complainant had been convicted of the criminal offence. Otherwise you'd need evidence which was tantamount to proving that he was guilty of it.

[jno]

jake, I made the same point but FredPuli has suggested that you can pass sentences under the current legislation. I don't like the idea.

As for it "not being the worst sort of case" - unfortunately, Savile has dramatically redefined "worst". Anyone who has molested fewer than a thousand children can now claim to be nowhere near the worst.

[andy-hughes]

The Shadow Justice Secretary has written to ask for the leniency of the sentence to be reviewed - citing the current legislation that allows for sonsecutive sentencing for each count of assault which will extend the sentence handed down.