You be the judge (sentencing)

[LashL]

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.

Rotflmao!!

 

[angrysoba]

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.

I think with cases so old as the Stuart Hall crimes it is difficult to provide a heavy sentence partly because those crimes were punished so lightly in those days. As far as I know, people can not receive sentences heavier than those that existed at the time.

As for the teacher and his girlfriend, I agree that the punishment is pretty harsh, but he's not being prosecuted "for being in a consensual relationship and having consensual sex", he's being prosecuted because she was under the age of consent and for kidnapping.

Then again i guess one shouldn't expect anything less from a nation of hypocrites and vermin. Bravo Britain. Bravo.

Awww! I bet Britain is weally, weally upset to be called beastly names by a tewwible howwible bully like you.

 

[Freddy]

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.

I'm not sure based on the OP, and I have not read up on this case, but this sounds right to me. In the US, for example, it is a crime to lie to federal investigators if the lie is the sort of lie that might inhibit an investigation. There is no requirement that the lie actually delay the investigation for even a single second. If the youtube video was part of a scheme to cast suspicion away from the defendant, and if that can be proved, I could see a criminal charge being justified.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not sure based on the OP, and I have not read up on this case, but this sounds right to me. In the US, for example, it is a crime to lie to federal investigators if the lie is the sort of lie that might inhibit an investigation. There is no requirement that the lie actually delay the investigation for even a single second. If the youtube video was part of a scheme to cast suspicion away from the defendant, and if that can be proved, I could see a criminal charge being justified.

Hi Freddy

Yes, it was proved and he got an extra year for it, on top of 2 1/2 years for criminal damage.

 

[Totalcolour]

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.

But, isn't the "LAW" somewhat open to interpretation by the Judge? I have seen a number of cases (in the U.S.) that are almost identical, yet the judges give very different sentences based on "His/Her" interpretation of the applicable law.

Also, isn't it true that sometimes laws are changed when a judge decides to "set precedent" and override the standing law? This then becomes a sort of temporary ruling that can be used in appeals, and if this new ruling stands up, it then becomes "fixed".

 

[Ian Osborne]

But, isn't the "LAW" somewhat open to interpretation by the Judge? I have seen a number of cases (in the U.S.) that are almost identical, yet the judges give very different sentences based on "His/Her" interpretation of the applicable law.

Also, isn't it true that sometimes laws are changed when a judge decides to "set precedent" and override the standing law? This then becomes a sort of temporary ruling that can be used in appeals, and if this new ruling stands up, it then becomes "fixed".

Both of those things are true, but they tend to happen at the fringes of the law, in legal grey areas where there is little or no precedent to follow. For example, do publishing laws cover internet forums and blogs? Those things didn't exist when the laws were framed, so until parliament revises them, it's down to judges to interpret the existing laws and set precedent.

The action discussed in this thread is clearly conspiracy to pervert, and leaves little room for interpretation.

 

[smartcooky]

But, isn't the "LAW" somewhat open to interpretation by the Judge? I have seen a number of cases (in the U.S.) that are almost identical, yet the judges give very different sentences based on "His/Her" interpretation of the applicable law.

Also, isn't it true that sometimes laws are changed when a judge decides to "set precedent" and override the standing law? This then becomes a sort of temporary ruling that can be used in appeals, and if this new ruling stands up, it then becomes "fixed".

That is true, but it is beside the point.

In fact judges do have the ability to decide that a certain law is not applicable to a certain situation, but it does not mean that a particular statute doesn't exist any more merely because a judge decided to not apply it.

In Parliamentary Democracies such as Great Britain (where this case took place), Australia and New Zealand, Laws can only be enacted by Acts of Parliament. Judges cannot make Law they way the do in the US, and even they are restricted by the wording of the US Constitutions and its various amendments.

Fact: Creating a false evidence trail is a criminal offence. There is no possible valid argument to say that it isn't because it is "Common Law" (or what Americans would call "black letter Law"). In UK, it comes under "Offences against the administration of public justice" and includes such things as...

► Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice
► Concealing evidence, contrary to section 5(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
► Making a false statutory declaration, contrary to section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911
► Fabrication of false evidence
► Causing a wasteful employment of the police, contrary to section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

EDIT:

anglolawyer will have a better Idea, but I would say that last two are probably what the tagger was charged with in addition to the criminal damage charges.