You be the judge (sentencing)

[anglolawyer]

My guesses:

A. 3 years
B. I have to abstain because I have read about the sentence already.
C. 5 years

Disqualified from first prize due to already knowing B. You undershot A and C by 6 months each, proving you would have given Stuart Hall only 9 months for 14 counts of indecent assault on girls as young as 9! I don't know how you sleep at night.

 

[geni]

I wonder what happens to someone like him. He could still teach at night school.

Well he was a maths teacher so he may have a maths degree. Night school is unlikely. A lot of those are run by colleges which have 16-18 year olds as well as vulnerable adults both of which would create issues.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Given it is very unlikely that at any point in the police investigation they decided to search YouTube to see if there were any relevant videos that would assist them, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the accused not only created a video and uploaded it to YouTube, but that they then also raised the existence of that video with the police in an attempt to demonstrate that they were not the guilty person.

Does that change your view of whether that amounts to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

It makes me even more inclined to throw out the charge. Exactly how stupid are the police? If the accused wrote 'I ddi it, ima dog, ruff ruff" on a sheet of paper, stamped it with a pawprint, and swore it was a confession signed by the dog from "Frasier", would these police have accepted it as evidence and pursued the dog? Either they have enough evidence for the real charge, vandalism, to stick or they can get the hell out of my court. They don't need extras if they've got a case on the vandalism.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well he was a maths teacher so he may have a maths degree. Night school is unlikely. A lot of those are run by colleges which have 16-18 year olds as well as vulnerable adults both of which would create issues.

Correspondence courses? Open University?

 

[anglolawyer]

It makes me even more inclined to throw out the charge. Exactly how stupid are the police? If the accused wrote 'I ddi it, ima dog, ruff ruff" on a sheet of paper, stamped it with a pawprint, and swore it was a confession signed by the dog from "Frasier", would these police have accepted it as evidence and pursued the dog? Either they have enough evidence for the real charge, vandalism, to stick or they can get the hell out of my court. They don't need extras if they've got a case on the vandalism.

Don't go there. If police stupidity were a defence no one would ever be convicted of anything.

 

[smartcooky]

Unless he's presenting this video under oath in court as truthful evidence (which would mean he doesn't reveal it's a reconstruction, but claims it's actual live footage) then he's done nothing wrong.

NO!

A woman makes an allegation of rape to the Police, and names a suspect. The Police spend many days investigating and questioning the suspect before discovering that she had deliberately named someone other than the person who allegedly raped her, and in fact, she was wasn't raped at all, but was pregnant to her boyfriend, and she made up the rape story to cover for him.

Has she done anything wrong?

Can she be charged with anything?

Does she have to make the allegation in a Court of Law before she has broken the Law?

I repeat what I have said before. In posting a YouTube video of a fake murder reconstruction implicating Harry as a murderer, Dick has probably done nothing wrong (other than perhaps violating YouTube's TOS).

However, as soon as he purports that the video is real, and does so with the intention of deflecting police attention away from the real perpetrator, his friend Tom, then he commits the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Its open and shut case law!!!

 

[geni]

Correspondence courses?

Not sure how common those are these days.

Open University?

Thats more Phd level.

No while I can't rule out some odd subfield of teaching I doubt he will ever teach again.

 

[TragicMonkey]

NO!

Don't shout at me, I'll have you thrown out of my court.

A woman makes an allegation of rape to the Police, and names a suspect. The Police spend many days investigating and questioning the suspect before discovering that she had deliberately named someone other than the person who allegedly raped her, and in fact, she was wasn't raped at all, but was pregnant to her boyfriend, and she made up the rape story to cover for him.

Has she done anything wrong?

Can she be charged with anything?

Does she have to make the allegation in a Court of Law before she has broken the Law?

I repeat what I have said before.

And so do I. I specifically stated several times that it was because the "statement" of the YouTube video was NOT made to the police that I don't consider it, or its truthfulness, as evidence at all. I don't know how I can possibly make it plainer.

In posting a YouTube video of a fake murder reconstruction implicating Harry as a murderer, Dick has probably done nothing wrong (other than perhaps violating YouTube's TOS).

However, as soon as he purports that the video is real, and does so with the intention of deflecting police attention away from the real perpetrator, his friend Tom, then he commits the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It depends on how he "purports" it. Again, is he bringing it up in court as evidence in his defense? Was it part of his statement given to investigators? If not, then I wouldn't allow it in the trial. The prosecution may not enter evidence on behalf of the defence for the purposing of demolishing that evidence so they can score points!

Its open and shut case law!!!

I'm getting very bored with this, and people who aren't reading everything shouting at me. I'm extremely comfortable with my ruling, per the thread topic of me being the judge. I have thrown out the charge of "perverting the course of justice", and ruled against allowing the video to be entered into evidence for either side. The prosecution, if it thinks it can make hay out of its pig's breakfast of a case, can try their luck in the court of appeals. They'd be smarter to settle for the conviction on the vandalism and leave it at that.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't shout at me, I'll have you thrown out of my court.



And so do I. I specifically stated several times that it was because the "statement" of the YouTube video was NOT made to the police that I don't consider it, or its truthfulness, as evidence at all. I don't know how I can possibly make it plainer.




It depends on how he "purports" it. Again, is he bringing it up in court as evidence in his defense? Was it part of his statement given to investigators? If not, then I wouldn't allow it in the trial. The prosecution may not enter evidence on behalf of the defence for the purposing of demolishing that evidence so they can score points!



I'm getting very bored with this, and people who aren't reading everything shouting at me. I'm extremely comfortable with my ruling, per the thread topic of me being the judge. I have thrown out the charge of "perverting the course of justice", and ruled against allowing the video to be entered into evidence for either side. The prosecution, if it thinks it can make hay out of its pig's breakfast of a case, can try their luck in the court of appeals. They'd be smarter to settle for the conviction on the vandalism and leave it at that.

The thread title is 'you be the judge (sentencing)'. You don't get to decide guilt on Case A, which was already (correctly) adjudicated before you posted.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The thread title is 'you be the judge (sentencing)'. You don't get to decide guilt on Case A, which was already (correctly) adjudicated before you posted.

I wasn't deciding guilt, I was deciding to not allow evidence. But fine, if it did get railroaded in, and the jury did convict, then as I said before, on that count I'd sentence to time already served.

 

[smartcooky]

And so do I. I specifically stated several times that it was because the "statement" of the YouTube video was NOT made to the police that I don't consider it, or its truthfulness, as evidence at all. I don't know how I can possibly make it plainer.

But it was!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-secret-life-as-graffiti-vandal-exposed.html

"But when Holmes realised he was being investigated by the police, he created a series of YouTube videos showing a mixed race man spraying his distinctive tag."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ager-convicted-seven-year-graffiti-spree.html

"Holmes had also created a series of YouTube videos with Pang to throw detectives off the scent. 'There was a conspiracy as posting the videos on YouTube was an attempt to mislead police into thinking the author of the tag was mixed race person, not a white person,'

Cause and effect. He realised he was being investigated, so he created the YouTube videos to deflect the investigation away from him and towards another person. That effort succeeded in sidetracking the police for 12 months; that is textbook perversion of the course of justice.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But it was!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-secret-life-as-graffiti-vandal-exposed.html

"But when Holmes realised he was being investigated by the police, he created a series of YouTube videos showing a mixed race man spraying his distinctive tag."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ager-convicted-seven-year-graffiti-spree.html

"Holmes had also created a series of YouTube videos with Pang to throw detectives off the scent. 'There was a conspiracy as posting the videos on YouTube was an attempt to mislead police into thinking the author of the tag was mixed race person, not a white person,'

Cause and effect. He realised he was being investigated, so he created the YouTube videos to deflect the investigation away from him and towards another person. That effort succeeded in sidetracking the police for 12 months; that is textbook perversion of the course of justice.

Argh. Argh. Argh. Again, I don't care. He could make a thousand videos. A million. He could fill the whole of the internet with videos. As long as he didn't hand them to the police and swear it was evidence of his innocence, I wouldn't consider it evidence. That the police mistook it for evidence of anything is their mistake, as long as the defendant didn't claim it was evidence.

 

[smartcooky]

Argh. Argh. Argh. Again, I don't care. He could make a thousand videos. A million. He could fill the whole of the internet with videos. As long as he didn't hand them to the police and swear it was evidence of his innocence, I wouldn't consider it evidence. That the police mistook it for evidence of anything is their mistake, as long as the defendant didn't claim it was evidence.

But he did, don't you get that?

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/surveyor-dad-graffiti-gang-kingpin-kristian-holmes

"When he realised the cops were on to him, this Night Stalker of the tagging world uploaded several faked-up videos to YouTube which showed Pang doing the VAMP tag, in a vain attempt to throw the cops off the scent by making them think that the guy they were looking for wasn’t white. For that, he was also convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice."

He created them for the sole purpose of deflecting the investigation away from him, and then pointed them out to the police. How else do you think the Police found out? Do you think they have a squad of constables sitting in a room trawling through millions of uploaded videos on the off chance that one might show evidence of a crime they just happen to be investigating?

 

[TragicMonkey]

But he did, don't you get that?

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/surveyor-dad-graffiti-gang-kingpin-kristian-holmes

"When he realised the cops were on to him, this Night Stalker of the tagging world uploaded several faked-up videos to YouTube which showed Pang doing the VAMP tag, in a vain attempt to throw the cops off the scent by making them think that the guy they were looking for wasn’t white. For that, he was also convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice."

He created them for the sole purpose of deflecting the investigation away from him, and then pointed them out to the police. How else do you think the Police found out? Do you think they have a squad of constables sitting in a room trawling through millions of uploaded videos on the off chance that one might show evidence of a crime they just happen to be investigating?

I wouldn't put any idiocy past the police if they listened to the advice of their prime suspect, saw a video on YouTube, and declared "Good Heavens! Proof of innocence!"

I don't think we need bother continuing, I've said everything I want to (several times over, now) and I really have lost all enjoyment of being ganged up on by multiple people making the same points I've already considered and rejected. I'm not going to change my mind, and neither is anybody else. Is it so very important that in my fictitious judicial career I echo the same rulings as everyone else? I don't think so. I've just heard on the grapevine that I'm a candidate for the next Lord Chief Justice, so obviously someone up there likes my style on the bench.

 

[anglolawyer]

But he did, don't you get that?

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/surveyor-dad-graffiti-gang-kingpin-kristian-holmes

"When he realised the cops were on to him, this Night Stalker of the tagging world uploaded several faked-up videos to YouTube which showed Pang doing the VAMP tag, in a vain attempt to throw the cops off the scent by making them think that the guy they were looking for wasn’t white. For that, he was also convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice."

He created them for the sole purpose of deflecting the investigation away from him, and then pointed them out to the police. How else do you think the Police found out? Do you think they have a squad of constables sitting in a room trawling through millions of uploaded videos on the off chance that one might show evidence of a crime they just happen to be investigating?

He wouldn't need to walk into the police station and hand in the tapes of these videos in order to attract liability. Just posting the film with the intent that it should be found and in order to deceive would be enough. Aside from that, I really have no idea what Tragic Monkey doesn't get since you have explained it very, very, very clearly.

 

[anglolawyer]

I wasn't deciding guilt, I was deciding to not allow evidence. But fine, if it did get railroaded in, and the jury did convict, then as I said before, on that count I'd sentence to time already served.

But you are disallowing evidence on which guilt rests so ...

 

[TragicMonkey]

He wouldn't need to walk into the police station and hand in the tapes of these videos in order to attract liability. Just posting the film with the intent that it should be found and in order to deceive would be enough. Aside from that, I really have no idea what Tragic Monkey doesn't get since you have explained it very, very, very clearly.

It's not that I don't "get" what everybody else is constantly yelling at me, it's that I disagree. That's allowed, you know.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not that I don't "get" what everybody else is constantly yelling at me, it's that I disagree. That's allowed, you know.

Its not something that you can agree or disagree with. Its actually the Law. Fact!

If you disagree with that, then you are wrong! Also fact!

What I think you are disagreeing with is whether it SHOULD be the Law, and you obviously think it should not be. You appear not to like that the Law makes it illegal to mislead the police in an investigation, and you'd rather that criminals be legally allowed create trails of bogus evidence and to falsely implicate other people in their attempts to avoid prosecution.

 

[Mojo]

Interesting how multiple counts of molestation can afford a lesser sentence than being in a consensual relationship and having consensual sex, where all the "harm" was caused not by the perpetrator of the crime but rather by the legal authorities themselves.

You are aware that the judge in the Stuart Hall case was constrained by the limited penalties that were available at the time of the offences, which have been increased considerably since?

Just in case the link hasn't already been posted, the judge's reasoning for the sentence he arrived at can be found here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...s/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-17062013.pdf

 

[TragicMonkey]

Its not something that you can agree or disagree with.

I think you'll find one can disagree with it. I did. So can you, if you put some effort in it.

Its actually the Law. Fact!

If you disagree with that, then you are wrong! Also fact!

You appear to regard this as a trivia game, in which there is one right (or as you would put it, Right!) answer. I disagree. It's a conversation, in which anyone invited to may express their opinion. I have done so. I don't care if other people disagree with me, I don't see why it seems to upset some so much that I disagree with them.

What I think you are disagreeing with is whether it SHOULD be the Law, and you obviously think it should not be. You appear not to like that the Law makes it illegal to mislead the police in an investigation, and you'd rather that criminals be legally allowed create trails of bogus evidence and to falsely implicate other people in their attempts to avoid prosecution.

What I think is that you are heaping strawmen upon my doorstep because I dare to disagree with you. Please stop. I believe I have expressed myself fully in the course of this thread.