Sentencing options - you decide.

anglolawyer said:
Here are three recent cases from the UK. I want you to pass sentence. No googling to look up what each defendant actually got.

Case A

Two businessmen perpetrated a series of mortgage frauds worth £750M (yes, million).

Case B

A guy twice drove his Range Rover up mount Snowdon (Wales's highest peak) and parked it there. He failed to turn up at court and posted a message on the courthouse saying 'you can't catch me'.

Note: Snowdon is three thousand feet high. A railway line runs all the way to the top where there is a snack bar.

Case C

A guy sued his local authority (local government) after injuring himself when crossing their land. He was supported by two witnesses. They all signed 'statements of truth' to support the claim but the claim was dismissed when CCTV evidence showed they had made it up. The local authority then successfully brought proceedings for contempt of court and they were duly sentenced.

I will reveal the answers after a few guesses as I think they are interesting. For the Americans, we are a lot softer than you so I will probably have to halve your guesses to bring them into line but it's the ratio between them that interests me mainly. Er, no one got the death penalty btw.:)
Click to expand...

A - time served

B- small fine (under L50 )

C- 2 years at hard labor
 
anglolawyer said:
Here are three recent cases from the UK. I want you to pass sentence. No googling to look up what each defendant actually got.

Case A

Two businessmen perpetrated a series of mortgage frauds worth £750M (yes, million).

Case B

A guy twice drove his Range Rover up mount Snowdon (Wales's highest peak) and parked it there. He failed to turn up at court and posted a message on the courthouse saying 'you can't catch me'.

Note: Snowdon is three thousand feet high. A railway line runs all the way to the top where there is a snack bar.

Case C

A guy sued his local authority (local government) after injuring himself when crossing their land. He was supported by two witnesses. They all signed 'statements of truth' to support the claim but the claim was dismissed when CCTV evidence showed they had made it up. The local authority then successfully brought proceedings for contempt of court and they were duly sentenced.

I will reveal the answers after a few guesses as I think they are interesting. For the Americans, we are a lot softer than you so I will probably have to halve your guesses to bring them into line but it's the ratio between them that interests me mainly. Er, no one got the death penalty btw.:)
Click to expand...

Case A: 5 to 10 years (does UK have indeterminate sentences?) - let's say 8.

Case B: 18 months to 2 years. Say 2 years.

Case C: Not a day.
 
Last edited:
OK - answers in half an hour. You may google to find Case C. I'm interested to see whether anyone can find it (it is online).
 
Oh well, bed time for me, so I'll find out tomorrow, cracking idea for a thread BTW. One of our cousins from an ex colony should do the same.
 
Time's up - Answers

Case A (mortgage fraud)

The two guys got 7 years and 5 years. Much too short IMO. They will be out in half the time with good behaviour and will probably be sent to a cushy open prison. You need a bigger deterrent. If I knew how, I might try it myself for that kind of money.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gage-worth-750MILLION-jailed-seven-years.html

Case B (driving up Snowdon)

Three sentences, ordered to run consecutively, totalling 22 months. Much too long. He was sentenced for cocking a snook at the system but did no one any harm and I don't think driving up Snowdon is dangerous either. I have walked down the way he drove up and it's just a long slope.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21087633

Case C (false civil claim for personal injury)

The claimant got two months, one of the witnesses got one month and the other four months (he defended the contempt charges while the other two admitted them). These sentences are too short IMO. We have a spate of fraudulent PI claims right now. They are a scourge. These sentences are absurdly lenient compared to the punishment handed out to the driver.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2237.html

I find myself in agreement with Modified, surprised by Halides' leniency and not at all surprised by LashL's sound judgment. Nessie - I am with you on B.

ETA the Don got close to what I would do, except Case A, which he/she accurately guessed at least. Thanks for playing folks.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
........ did no one any harm and I don't think driving up Snowdon is dangerous either. .......
Click to expand...

I am just slightly curious about your thinking on this one (I agree with everything else you have said).

Is the fact that what he did wasn't dangerous of any consequence or relevance? People are allowed to do dangerous things legally, and illegal stuff isn't usually discussed in terms of how dangerous it is to the criminal. If he had had a child on board I could understand your point, but as the only person he was endangering was himself, (and I guess arguably the people that had to recover the vehicle), then surely the dangerous-ness of the stunt was unimportant.

As to not doing harm......here I fundamentally disagree. Snowdon is a fragile environment and a National Park. The damage the vehicle did will probably be evident for years, and the point is, once one car makes a track, others always follow. This is an environment in which walkers cause untold damage, with terribly thin soils, unstable soil, and fragile and rare plants. You can't just drive over that stuff and do no harm, and so I wouldn't be surprised if an element of the sentence was a deterrent to other idiots driving all over our precious wild places.

The thing that you haven't commented on is that this was his second offence, a carbon copy of the first one. Presumably he got told off severely the first time he did it, and chose to ignored that warning when doing it again. Clearly the judge must have thought that anything less than a decent prison sentence was just going to result in another court case when he put a car up there for a third or fourth time.

Mike
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I am just slightly curious about your thinking on this one (I agree with everything else you have said).

Is the fact that what he did wasn't dangerous of any consequence or relevance? People are allowed to do dangerous things legally, and illegal stuff isn't usually discussed in terms of how dangerous it is to the criminal. If he had had a child on board I could understand your point, but as the only person he was endangering was himself, (and I guess arguably the people that had to recover the vehicle), then surely the dangerous-ness of the stunt was unimportant.

As to not doing harm......here I fundamentally disagree. Snowdon is a fragile environment and a National Park. The damage the vehicle did will probably be evident for years, and the point is, once one car makes a track, others always follow. This is an environment in which walkers cause untold damage, with terribly thin soils, unstable soil, and fragile and rare plants. You can't just drive over that stuff and do no harm, and so I wouldn't be surprised if an element of the sentence was a deterrent to other idiots driving all over our precious wild places.

The thing that you haven't commented on is that this was his second offence, a carbon copy of the first one. Presumably he got told off severely the first time he did it, and chose to ignored that warning when doing it again. Clearly the judge must have thought that anything less than a decent prison sentence was just going to result in another court case when he put a car up there for a third or fourth time.

Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike

I feel quite strongly about all three cases. This one because it seems 'the system' got itself all worked up about the fact someone was making fun of it. 22 months is a heck of a sentence for a victimless crime - except for the environmental thing, which is a good point I hadn't thought of. Not sure that featured in the court's decision making though. If there had been a damaging spate of illicit off-roading on the mountain then I agree a deterrent sentence would be apt, but this guy seems to have been a harmless nut. Jail him for a month (if at all) and ban him from driving for a few years. Actually, I think 'the clang of the prison gates' is insufficiently used, meaning short sentences for shock value.

What do you think of the sentences handed out to the three guys in contempt compared to this guy? Isn't it out of line?

ETA the second offence thing is an aggravating feature. I agree. Even so, I would not put him away for the better part of two years.
 
Last edited:
Ok, how about another case:

In Leicester UK, 4 women in a gang beat a random woman until she is unconscious, including kicks to her head. Its all caught on CCTV, no question of guilt.

Sentence?
 
Last edited:
lobosrul said:
Ok, how about another case:

In Leicester UK, 4 women in a gang beat a random woman until she is unconscious, including kicks to her head. Its all caught on CCTV, no question of guilt.

Sentence?
Click to expand...

What injuries did the victim sustain?

ETA unconscious is serious. I would imprison them for short periods unless there was serious injury when the terms would be longer. I bet they got next to nothing.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
What injuries did the victim sustain?

ETA unconscious is serious. I would imprison them for short periods unless there was serious injury when the terms would be longer. I bet they got next to nothing.
Click to expand...

Article only says: was beaten black and blue, hospitalized, had a bald patch from hair being pulled out.

Edit: source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...urt-hears-they-were-not-used-to-drinking.html

IMO once you start kicking someone on the ground you've crossed a very serious line. 3 years imprisonment (actual time served), if they had clean records would be about right IMO.
 
Last edited:
you are right

I was too lenient. However, it would not take much prison time to dissuade me from committing a crime, and I may have answered based on that.
 
anglolawyer said:
Case B (driving up Snowdon)

Three sentences, ordered to run consecutively, totalling 22 months. Much too long. He was sentenced for cocking a snook at the system but did no one any harm and I don't think driving up Snowdon is dangerous either. I have walked down the way he drove up and it's just a long slope.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21087633
Click to expand...

Nearly two years for driving a 4WD up a hillside?* How ridiculous! I know of people who have assaulted others that have got less than that.

This guy has been victimised and smacked down because he was cheeky to officialdom. He surely has grounds for appeal against the harshness of the sentence.

* Mt Snowdon would be little more than a pimple on the landscape here. I drive over a hill almost as high every time I go to Golden Bay (Takaka Hill - 2,900 ft).
 
Nessie said:
I am surprised at how many want to put these guys in prison when they pose no danger to others.
Click to expand...

No physical danger, maybe. People who will defraud banks or the government may do the same to me. Plus, when successful, they are costing me directly in higher bank fees and taxes.
 
smartcooky said:
This guy has been victimised and smacked down because he was cheeky to officialdom. He surely has grounds for appeal against the harshness of the sentence.
Click to expand...

I think if human nature advanced to the point where there was no war, poverty, or hunger, you'd still get extra punishment for being a smartass.
 
1) Hard labor for life
2) Seizure of his range rover
3) Prosecution and sentencing for perjury per applicable statues, compensating the original defendent for all costs.
 
jj said:
1) Hard labor for life
Click to expand...

I'm generally well to the liberal end of the political spectrum, but $750m is a huge sum of money that could, for example, save hundreds of affluent First World lives. So while it's by no means exactly equivalent to a couple of hundred counts of murder I think that the criminal penalties should be vaguely equivalent.

For white-collar crime in the eight figure range, life without parole seems quite appropriate to me.
 
Gone are the good ole days of a hanging, you know! The ole we don't put up with nothing so don't do it attitude, you open the door just a crack and a head pops in saying ------

You guys thought I was going to post a picture and quote of "Jack" from the shining didn't ya ~?

Tim :)
 
anglolawyer said:
Here are three recent cases from the UK. I want you to pass sentence. No googling to look up what each defendant actually got.

Case A

Two businessmen perpetrated a series of mortgage frauds worth £750M (yes, million).

Case B

A guy twice drove his Range Rover up mount Snowdon (Wales's highest peak) and parked it there. He failed to turn up at court and posted a message on the courthouse saying 'you can't catch me'.

Note: Snowdon is three thousand feet high. A railway line runs all the way to the top where there is a snack bar.

Case C

A guy sued his local authority (local government) after injuring himself when crossing their land. He was supported by two witnesses. They all signed 'statements of truth' to support the claim but the claim was dismissed when CCTV evidence showed they had made it up. The local authority then successfully brought proceedings for contempt of court and they were duly sentenced.

I will reveal the answers after a few guesses as I think they are interesting. For the Americans, we are a lot softer than you so I will probably have to halve your guesses to bring them into line but it's the ratio between them that interests me mainly. Er, no one got the death penalty btw.:)
Click to expand...

Okay, Case A, I am going to guess that whatever jail sentence they got it was a suspended sentence. Maybe 2 years.

Case B, I think driving up Mt. Snowdon is perhaps going to have some environmental laws attached to it. Erm...7 years.

Case C, I think that trying to make fools of the council could end up with a sentence of 15 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom