You be the judge (sentencing)

Totalcolour said:
Yes, it is young, and he is much older and he should have known better.

Here in the States though, there is something (not sure what it's called) about sharing of guilt. I was only mentioning it because a 15 year old should have "Some" idea of right and wrong, and most certainly should know what the sex laws are (And I'm not sure if the sharing of guilt issue would apply to this sort of case anyway).

Think of it another way though - suppose the two of them had committed murder. Would she be exonerated because she is underage? I don't think so. They would both take a portion of blame.
Click to expand...

All very true. And she could be a knowing seductress responsible, if not in the eyes of the criminal law, for the guy's downfall and yet still the law would penalise him and protect her.
 
anglolawyer said:
All very true. And she could be a knowing seductress responsible, if not in the eyes of the criminal law, for the guy's downfall and yet still the law would penalise him and protect her.
Click to expand...
He is responsible for his own downfall
 
anglolawyer said:
I think so TM. Of course there is no legal obligation to be truthful per se. I just won the Euro Millions and am sending you a cheque for $10M today. The problem comes when you post or say something untrue with an illegal design. He was convicted of doing that with his You Tube vid.
Click to expand...


I agree.

Not sure about US Law, but in NZ, and I suspect UK, it is illegal to use any kind of document or like instrument (a youtube video could be considered an instrument) to mislead the police, even if that document or instrument is never used by the defendant in a Court of Law.

A good example is putting a forged registration ticket (in UK think "Tax Disk") on your car to mislead the Police into believing that your car is legally registered.

If you are caught driving with a forged registration ticket the fine is MUCH more than if you simply have an expired one.
 
anglolawyer said:
Case A
30 months for the criminal damage and another 12 for perverting the course of justice, to run consecutively
Click to expand...

Surprised its was that way around. May be on the high side because the prosecution was in the unusual position of being able to prove a large number of offences. Hitting the Bluebell railway may also not have been the smartest thing to do. Heh given how active the PS crew were their removal from play may have had a statisticaly notable impact.
 
Hmm.
Case 1: given the scope and extent if the damage, a large fine, recovery of costs and a prison term of ~18 months (all but six suspended); for perverting the course of justice (or attempting to)
Case 2: consecutive 7-12 year terms for each offense
Case 3: I'm tempted to suggest castration, chemical or otherwise, but given he was in a position of authority and trust I'd say 5-7 years. That assumes the suicide bit isn't proven. Though I'd have to know more.
 
catsmate1 said:
Hmm.
Case 1: given the scope and extent if the damage, a large fine, recovery of costs and a prison term of ~18 months (all but six suspended); for perverting the course of justice (or attempting to)
Case 2: consecutive 7-12 year terms for each offense
Case 3: I'm tempted to suggest castration, chemical or otherwise, but given he was in a position of authority and trust I'd say 5-7 years. That assumes the suicide bit isn't proven. Though I'd have to know more.
Click to expand...

See post no. 47 for the answers to A and B (not 1 and 2 - life is complicated enough). Case C is continuing. You will be interested to see how far off you were on Case B.
 
Latest on Case C from the BBC reporting evidence given by the teacher's wife.

The wife of the teacher accused of abducting a schoolgirl told his trial how their marriage had fallen apart in the months before they disappeared.

Emily Forrest said she had asked her husband to stop sending tweets to a girl because it was not "appropriate".

She told Lewes Crown Court: "I didn't think there was anything in it." But she thought he could get into trouble.

...

Mrs Forrest, 32, said the couple's relationship had deteriorated since the end of 2011.

Husband's reassurance
"He was staying out at night a lot and not telling me where he was going," she said.

At one point during her evidence Mrs Forrest began crying and judge Michael Lawson QC allowed her time to take a break.

She said her husband had reassured her there was no problem with his Twitter conversations because they were on a public forum.

...

She said the couple had gone out for a meal on 19 September last year, the day before Mr Forrest went with the girl to France.

"I went to bed and Jeremy kind of tucked me in. He just told me he loved me," she said.

Earlier, the girl's mother told the court she had feared she was dead during the pair's week-long disappearance.

And she said she had ended up apologising to Mr Forrest when he told her the girl was "being a bit of a pain", hanging around him.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
Interesting thread. Interesting outcomes.

I'll take 5 years on C. The Student/Teacher thing will get you in trouble even if the child is over the age of consent. And sex is rarely consider appropriate therapy for suicidal thoughts, though I think that is prudish thinking.
Click to expand...

Why not ? Sex release a slew of hormon endorphin among them.
 
smartcooky said:
I agree.

Not sure about US Law, but in NZ, and I suspect UK, it is illegal to use any kind of document or like instrument (a youtube video could be considered an instrument) to mislead the police, even if that document or instrument is never used by the defendant in a Court of Law.

A good example is putting a forged registration ticket (in UK think "Tax Disk") on your car to mislead the Police into believing that your car is legally registered.

If you are caught driving with a forged registration ticket the fine is MUCH more than if you simply have an expired one.
Click to expand...

But that would mean YouTube is every bit as legally authoritative as whatever taxing authority issues those tickets. "You have defrauded YouTube by posting lies!" *gasp* "Twenty years in prison!"
 
TragicMonkey said:
"You have defrauded YouTube by posting lies!" *gasp* "Twenty years in prison!"
Click to expand...

It's not about defrauding YouTube, it's about creating a false evidence trail that points away from the guilty party. In other words, it's conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The fact that the false evidence was distributed through YouTube is irrelevant.
 
Ian Osborne said:
It's not about defrauding YouTube, it's about creating a false evidence trail that points away from the guilty party. In other words, it's conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The fact that the false evidence was distributed through YouTube is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide what is or isn't evidence? If anything is on the internet, is that potential evidence? If so, then nobody better ever post anything other than provable truth because if a cop or prosecutor finds it and decides it's "evidence", you would be perverting the course of justice. I'm not, in fact, an actual monkey. But if I ever get tried for something, could the prosecution use the posts I've made on this messageboard as evidence that I've tried to create a false identity as a monkey and therefore pervert the course of justice?

There is no legal requirement to be truthful in everything. A false statement to an investigating cop or a court is a very different thing than a false statement a cop happens to uncover that you made to someone else. Especially since there is not, nor has ever been, an assumption on the part of the public or YouTube itself that posting videos there is limited to items you would swear to in court!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Who gets to decide what is or isn't evidence? If anything is on the internet, is that potential evidence? If so, then nobody better ever post anything other than provable truth because if a cop or prosecutor finds it and decides it's "evidence", you would be perverting the course of justice. I'm not, in fact, an actual monkey. But if I ever get tried for something, could the prosecution use the posts I've made on this messageboard as evidence that I've tried to create a false identity as a monkey and therefore pervert the course of justice?

There is no legal requirement to be truthful in everything. A false statement to an investigating cop or a court is a very different thing than a false statement a cop happens to uncover that you made to someone else. Especially since there is not, nor has ever been, an assumption on the part of the public or YouTube itself that posting videos there is limited to items you would swear to in court!
Click to expand...

Funny, I had assumed not only that you were a monkey but a dead one too!

A brilliant but futile rearguard action Tragic. If you post something on You Tube with intent to pervert the course of justice (as in this case by derailing the cops' enquiry by inducing them to believe that others were using this guy's distinctive mark) you commit an offence.

And what you say here at JREF certainly is capable of being evidence, albeit I cannot presently think of an issue which would turn on anything you have posted in this particular thread. Just calling yourself Tragic Monkey and adopting an amusing avatar is obviously not an offence but no one here has suggested it is.
 
anglolawyer said:
Funny, I had assumed not only that you were a monkey but a dead one too!

A brilliant but futile rearguard action Tragic. If you post something on You Tube with intent to pervert the course of justice (as in this case by derailing the cops' enquiry by inducing them to believe that others were using this guy's distinctive mark) you commit an offence.

And what you say here at JREF certainly is capable of being evidence, albeit I cannot presently think of an issue which would turn on anything you have posted in this particular thread. Just calling yourself Tragic Monkey and adopting an amusing avatar is obviously not an offence but no one here has suggested it is.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what I say here now because I'm not currently being investigated for anything. But if I were, tomorrow, then suddenly and retroactively all my statements here are suddenly evidence, and not only evidence but evidence I'm purportedly advancing as completely true testimony in a trial that hasn't even happened yet. At the discretion of the prosecution, I could be attempting "perverting the course of justice".

Unless you're in a situation where you're actively swearing your statements are true to an actual legal authority, you are not under an obligation to be truthful. I am the founding member of Bel Biv Devoe. I created the original Batman character. I am the reanimated corpse of Emperor Elagabalus. I slew fifty prostitutes in London in the 1880s. I spy for Iran, I sold nuclear devices to Bolivia, I convinced Delta Burke to quit "Designing Women". None of that is legal testimony and I should never be charged with perverting the course of justice on the assumption that I'm claiming to tell the truth in making them.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what I say here now because I'm not currently being investigated for anything. But if I were, tomorrow, then suddenly and retroactively all my statements here are suddenly evidence, and not only evidence but evidence I'm purportedly advancing as completely true testimony in a trial that hasn't even happened yet. At the discretion of the prosecution, I could be attempting "perverting the course of justice".

Unless you're in a situation where you're actively swearing your statements are true to an actual legal authority, you are not under an obligation to be truthful. I am the founding member of Bel Biv Devoe. I created the original Batman character. I am the reanimated corpse of Emperor Elagabalus. I slew fifty prostitutes in London in the 1880s. I spy for Iran, I sold nuclear devices to Bolivia, I convinced Delta Burke to quit "Designing Women". None of that is legal testimony and I should never be charged with perverting the course of justice on the assumption that I'm claiming to tell the truth in making them.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a point TBH.

ETA I and others already agreed/asserted there is no obligation to be truthful in general. Who are you debating this non-point with?
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
But that would mean YouTube is every bit as legally authoritative as whatever taxing authority issues those tickets. "You have defrauded YouTube by posting lies!" *gasp* "Twenty years in prison!"
Click to expand...


You are missing the point.

If you use any means whatsoever (a fake video, a fake audio tape, a staged event, a forged document) in order to mislead or misdirect the course of a Police investigation, you are committing a crime.

You are free to post lies and fake videos on youtube to your heart's content, but if you do so with the intent to falsely misdirect a Police investigation away from the real person or persons responsible for the commission of a crime, then you are yourself committing a crime as surely as if you handed the police that fake video on a disk!!
 
smartcooky said:
You are missing the point.

If you use any means whatsoever (a fake video, a fake audio tape, a staged event, a forged document) in order to mislead or misdirect the course of a Police investigation, you are committing a crime.

You are free to post lies and fake videos on youtube to your heart's content, but if you do so with the intent to falsely misdirect a Police investigation away from the real person or persons responsible for the commission of a crime, then you are yourself committing a crime as surely as if you handed the police that fake video on a disk!!
Click to expand...

Exactly this. The point isn't that the suspect faked a YouTube video, but that he deliberately faked the video to misdirect a police investigation.
 
A: 1 year suspended sentence conditioned on restitution and injunction from entering railway land.

B: No less than 15 years, to be served concurrently.

C: 4-8 years, may not contact the child.
 
Loss Leader said:
A: 1 year suspended sentence conditioned on restitution and injunction from entering railway land.

B: No less than 15 years, to be served concurrently.

C: 4-8 years, may not contact the child.
Click to expand...



ETA: I was completely wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom