• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

You be the judge (sentencing)

anglolawyer

Banned
anglolawyer
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
13,037
Location
Guilford
Three new cases on which to decide the sentence. All come from today's paper. Please guess before googling and please also refrain from publishing the actual outcomes for a page or two:

Case A

Graffiti - respectable 30 something surveyor convicted of an extended campaign of defacing railway architecture and rolling stock over a period of years, causing damage costing many thousand of pounds and putting some items out of service. Criminal damage. Also perverting the course of justice in posting film on youtube purporting to show someone else using his distinctive signature.

Case B

83 year old man, well known and respected BBC TV and radio presenter of long standing. Pleaded guilty to 14 counts of sexual assault on minors all committed many years ago in the 60s and 70s. Activity included unwanted kissing and touching. Ages of victims range from 9 to 17. An allegation of rape ordered to lie on the file (so he was not convicted of that one).

Case C - Jeremy Forrest

Even I get to answer this one as the trial is ongoing. 30 year old married maths teacher accused of child abduction after eloping with a 15 year old pupil to France. His defence (which she supports) is that he went with her to stop her committing suicide. As they had sex I assume he is also charged with having sex with a minor. 4 years is my guess.

Have at it.
 
Case A

5 years for vandalism and 4 years for perjury

Case B

10 years for each charge, to be served consecutively. Yeah it's a whole live tariff in all but name, but the message has to be sent: abuse of children will not be tolerated, especially if you are of high society.

Case C

25 years. See Case B.
 
It's a bit hard without knowing the priors of each. Assuming no priors and UK jurisdiction

Case A: 12 months jail and heavy fine (£20,000 or so)

Case B: Guilty plea will get a discount. No rape conviction. Age. 2 year suspended sentence.

Case C: The book will be thrown at this guy due to the ick factor. I don't support it, but my guess will be 20 years.
 
lionking said:
It's a bit hard without knowing the priors of each. Assuming no priors and UK jurisdiction

Case A: 12 months jail and heavy fine (£20,000 or so)

Case B: Guilty plea will get a discount. No rape conviction. Age. 2 year suspended sentence.

Case C: The book will be thrown at this guy due to the ick factor. I don't support it, but my guess will be 20 years.
Click to expand...

No priors for any of them.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Case A

5 years for vandalism and 4 years for perjury

Case B

10 years for each charge, to be served consecutively. Yeah it's a whole live tariff in all but name, but the message has to be sent: abuse of children will not be tolerated, especially if you are of high society.

Case C

25 years. See Case B.
Click to expand...

I am predicting these will be at the tougher end of the scale. :)

Are your Case A sentences to run concurrently or consecutively?
 
Case A: 6 months suspended and a £2000 fine

Case B: A couple of years

Case C: 1 year
 
Case A: 6 months suspended and fine

Case B: I hesitate between 2 years suspended and 10 years firm...

Case C: abduction maybe 20 years, normally age of consent is 15 years , but since he has authority as a teacher that does not count, it is seen as non consensual sexETA my sentence is bizarre what I meant to say is age of consent is 15 except in the case the guy has authority , and as a teacher he has, so no consent was possible. .
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Graffiti - respectable 30 something surveyor convicted of an extended campaign of defacing railway architecture and rolling stock over a period of years, causing damage costing many thousand of pounds and putting some items out of service. Criminal damage. Also perverting the course of justice in posting film on youtube purporting to show someone else using his distinctive signature.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how posting something like that on YouTube could possibly be "perverting the course of justice". It can't be perjury if it wasn't advanced as evidence and sworn to in court, can it? There's no legal obligation to be truthful in posting videos to YouTube, is there?
 
A: Small fine and community sentence for the vandalism. I don't recognise the connection between posting a video and perverting the course of justice, but if he was found guilty of that , then maybe 18 months prison, and he will win on appeal.

B: 18 months prison

C: 8 years gaol, and a life-time on the sex-offenders register.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I don't understand how posting something like that on YouTube could possibly be "perverting the course of justice". It can't be perjury if it wasn't advanced as evidence and sworn to in court, can it? There's no legal obligation to be truthful in posting videos to YouTube, is there?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aepervius said:
Case A: 6 months suspended and fine

Case B: I hesitate between 2 years suspended and 10 years firm...

Case C: abduction maybe 20 years, normally age of consent is 15 years , but since he has authority as a teacher that does not count, it is seen as non consensual sexETA my sentence is bizarre what I meant to say is age of consent is 15 except in the case the guy has authority , and as a teacher he has, so no consent was possible. .
Click to expand...

20 years? Geez! LOL - we got some real hanging judges around here.
 
lionking said:
I don't think that is a justified sentence, but I think it will be around the mark.
Click to expand...

I am using as a precedent for this one the case of former Arsenal footballer Graham Rix. He got something like this for having consensual sex with a minor if I recall. But this guy being a teacher makes it way more serious so I may have undershot with my four years. Of course, he has to be convicted of abduction but I think he will be since there were other things that might have occurred to a mature person in loco parentis when confronted with an emotional teen, besides taking her to France and doing it with her.
 
anglolawyer said:
Three new cases on which to decide the sentence. All come from today's paper. Please guess before googling and please also refrain from publishing the actual outcomes for a page or two:

Case A

Graffiti - respectable 30 something surveyor convicted of an extended campaign of defacing railway architecture and rolling stock over a period of years, causing damage costing many thousand of pounds and putting some items out of service. Criminal damage. Also perverting the course of justice in posting film on youtube purporting to show someone else using his distinctive signature.

Case B

83 year old man, well known and respected BBC TV and radio presenter of long standing. Pleaded guilty to 14 counts of sexual assault on minors all committed many years ago in the 60s and 70s. Activity included unwanted kissing and touching. Ages of victims range from 9 to 17. An allegation of rape ordered to lie on the file (so he was not convicted of that one).

Case C - Jeremy Forrest

Even I get to answer this one as the trial is ongoing. 30 year old married maths teacher accused of child abduction after eloping with a 15 year old pupil to France. His defence (which she supports) is that he went with her to stop her committing suicide. As they had sex I assume he is also charged with having sex with a minor. 4 years is my guess.

Have at it.
Click to expand...

No idea, so:

Case A

I would guess a hefty fine and a suspended prison sentence. And being a judge of your write-up I would say you don't consider whatever he got to be sufficient.

Case B

I would guess a few months in jail. Judging from your write-up that is too long.

Case C

5 years and ordered not to go near any female under the age of 21 or allowed to work anywhere where females of such age could possibly congregate.
 
angrysoba said:
No idea, so:

Case A

I would guess a hefty fine and a suspended prison sentence. And being a judge of your write-up I would say you don't consider whatever he got to be sufficient.

Case B

I would guess a few months in jail. Judging from your write-up that is too long.

Case C

5 years and ordered not to go near any female under the age of 21 or allowed to work anywhere where females of such age could possibly congregate.
Click to expand...

Ah ha! This takes things to a whole new level. Predicting my predictions too! I tried to be as neutral and factual as possible. I personally have no great issues with the sentences handed out in cases A and B although I was initially rather struck by the first one and case B has attracted some strong opinions. I am worrying that I may have been too soft on C. Too late to change anything now though.
 
Ummmm ... regarding Case A the estimated cost of the damage was

£250,000 :eek:


which might affect people's judgement somewhat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom