Stuart Hall's sentence doubled

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Let's say that Mr Y is convicted in 2013 of an offence committed in the year 19xx.

The law under which he is convicted is the law applicable in the year 19xx, not 2013.

 

Q: under which sentencing regime should Mr Y be sentenced?

i 19xx's?

or

ii. 2013's?

[redfox]

The sentencing regime is the one that applied at the time the offences were committed - hence the significant increases in sentencing powers for certain sexual offences.

See-

R v H and others [2011] EWCA Crim 2753, Lord Judge said appeal judges had taken “conflicting approaches” in the past to the issue.

 

“On occasions those who do complain within the family or school environment are ignored and rejected, and thereafter feel powerless to help themselves.

“Thus it is that the crimes do not come to the attention of investigating authorities until years later, when with maturity, sometimes as a result of parenthood itself, but in reality for a variety of different reasons, the truth of what happened in childhood emerges.”

 

Lord Judge said that although the sentence set must be limited to the maximum at the date when the offence was committed, it was “wholly unrealistic” to attempt an assessment of sentence by seeking to identify in 2011 what the sentence for an individual offence was likely to have been if the crime had come to light at or shortly after the date when it was committed.

Similarly, he said that if maximum sentences had been reduced over the years, “the more severe attitude to the offence in earlier years, even if it could be established, should not apply”.

The Lord Chief Justice said the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed and its seriousness “must be the main focus” in sentencing.

“Due allowance for the passage of time may be appropriate. The date may have a considerable bearing on the offender’s culpability.

“If, for example, the offender was very young and immature at the time when the case was committed, that remains a continuing feature of the sentencing decision.

Similarly if the allegations had come to light many years earlier, and when confronted with them, the defendant had admitted them, but for whatever reason, the complaint had not been drawn to the attention of, or investigated by, the police, or had been investigated and not then pursued to trial, these too would be relevant features.

“In some cases it may be safe to assume that the fact that, notwithstanding the

passage of years, the victim has chosen spontaneously to report what happened to him or her in his or her childhood or younger years would be an indication of continuing inner turmoil.

“However the circumstances in which the facts come to light varies, and careful judgment of the harm done to the victim is always a critical feature of the sentencing decision.”

Lord Judge said the passing of the years might demonstrate aggravating features, if the defendant had continued to commit sexual crime or represented a continuing risk.

“On the other hand, mitigation may be found in an unblemished life over the years since the offences were committed, particularly if accompanied by evidence of positive good character.

“Early admissions and a guilty plea are of particular importance in historic cases.

Just because they relate to facts which are long passed, the defendant will inevitably be tempted to lie his way out of the allegations.

“It is greatly to his credit if he makes early admissions. Even more powerful mitigation is available to the offender who out of a sense of guilt and remorse reports himself to the authorities.

[Xt500]

He obviously has enemies in high places.

 

Whats the point of courts,this just undermines them.

[Clown Shoes]

Still not long enough!

[sedith]

What about Tarbuck, Davidson, Starr and Bill Roach, when are they going to be brought to book?

[Super Hans]

Wrong decision.

 

So now everybody in jail now has to worry that at any moment somebody can come in and say "Sorry boy we've doubled your sentence see you in a year".

 

Not good enough, yes it was a lenient sentence to begin with but once the decision is made and the person is in jail, they should not - not know how long they are going to serve.

 

Make a decision and stick to it.

[rickiethecat]

I may be in a minority but from what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged offences, I doubt they were even worthy of a custodial sentence at all, never mind an increased one.

 

The problem is the general public read some tabloid soundbites about some former celebrity being a “peado” and they generally assume he spent his whole life raping young kids.

 

From what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged abuses, they seem remarkably innocent; a peck on the cheek here, a pinch on the bum there, a friendly cuddle that maybe went on too long. And with no witnesses I find it very odd that the accounts of his compensation-chasing “victims” are taken as gospel truth.

 

Please note I’m not condoning any form of sexual attacks on children but it seems to me more that Stuart Hall is just a harmless, slightly pervy old man rather than the predatory peado he’s been vilified as.

[Happ Hazzard]

He is a paedo and I hope he dies in prison.

[alchresearch]

What about Tarbuck, Davidson, Starr and Bill Roach, when are they going to be brought to book?

 

The first three for crimes against comedy?

[melthebell]

Wrong decision.

 

So now everybody in jail now has to worry that at any moment somebody can come in and say "Sorry boy we've doubled your sentence see you in a year".

 

Not good enough, yes it was a lenient sentence to begin with but once the decision is made and the person is in jail, they should not - not know how long they are going to serve.

 

Make a decision and stick to it.

 

don't do the crime and don't worry about if your sentence will double