Annie Bynnol Posted June 19, 2023 Share Posted June 19, 2023 8 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said: Should any law exist only if it reflects opinions, though? It was wrong to kill a viable child in 1861. It still is. Section 58 of the 1861 Act is a target for repeal by campaigners because the all male Parliament decided what the sentencing rules should be reflecting the fact that all abortion was illegal. As it stands people can be charged under either Act. Is it not better that a judge who has all the information before them decides the sentencing rather than a Parliamentary opinion that passed into law 160 years ago? Section 58 makes no mention of 'viable child'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 She has been released. Three High Court heard the appeal and reduced her sentence to 14 months-suspended. “This is a very sad case … It is a case that calls for compassion, not punishment,” Dame Victoria Sharp said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted July 18, 2023 Author Share Posted July 18, 2023 4 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: She has been released. Three High Court heard the appeal and reduced her sentence to 14 months-suspended. “This is a very sad case … It is a case that calls for compassion, not punishment,” Dame Victoria Sharp said. Disgusting, she kills a child and she deserves "compassion". Ballcocks to that The world's gone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 4 hours ago, Chekhov said: Disgusting, she kills a child and she deserves "compassion". Ballcocks to that The world's gone mad. This is the how the legal system in this country works. In the original case she was found guilty of the 1861 Offence and the Judge was obliged to follow sentencing rules and impose a custodial sentence, which they did want to do. The Appeal did not change the verdict of guilty but the higher court was allowed to change the sentence as has happened thousands of times before with antiquated laws and sentencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted July 18, 2023 Share Posted July 18, 2023 5 hours ago, Chekhov said: Disgusting, she kills a child Well no, not quite. Think you missed a word out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted July 20, 2023 Author Share Posted July 20, 2023 On 18/07/2023 at 22:36, HeHasRisen said: Well no, not quite. Think you missed a word out. Sorry she kills her child, so that's alright then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Chekhov said: Sorry she kills her child, so that's alright then. No, I didnt say "change a word". You have still missed one out. Have another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted July 20, 2023 Author Share Posted July 20, 2023 (edited) On 18/07/2023 at 22:24, Annie Bynnol said: This is the how the legal system in this country works. In the original case she was found guilty of the 1861 Offence and the Judge was obliged to follow sentencing rules and impose a custodial sentence, which they did want to do. The Appeal did not change the verdict of guilty but the higher court was allowed to change the sentence as has happened thousands of times before with antiquated laws and sentencing. Say what you like, she killed her child and gets a suspended sentence. It's DISGUSTING. If she'd killed her child 5 minutes before going into labour would that have been alright as well ? 1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said: No, I didnt say "change a word". You have still missed one out. Have another go. What I said is correct, I do not need to add anything : She killed her child. Edited July 20, 2023 by Chekhov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 50 minutes ago, Chekhov said: Say what you like, she killed her child and gets a suspended sentence. It's DISGUSTING. If she'd killed her child 5 minutes before going into labour would that have been alright as well ? What I said is correct, I do not need to add anything : She killed her child. She was accused. The case was proved that she broke the Law. The original Judge had to impose a custodial sentence. The Appeal Court Judges agreed she was guilty and applied the custodial sentence that the original Judge wanted. Judges are expected to avoid 'beliefs', emotion and include all the evidence and information submitted (and you do not consider) when deciding, that is their job. "...DISGUSTING..." is not a legal term, neither is it a measurement of the magnitude of offence as you clearly demonstrate when you apply the word to: Toilet fees Prepayment meters Face Masks Net zero Vaccines Interest rates Term time school holidays fines Being Banned Boris Johnson Sentencing etc. The Appeal Judges also respect the sprit and purpose in which the Laws were made in Parliament. That Section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 has not been removed and re-written for the 1967 Act is problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now