Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Stuart Hall - Jailed for 15 months


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,162 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:05 PM

BBC News link

 

"Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300."

 

Only 13 victims, that's all right then, he should have been let off with a caution and told not to do it again.  Sometimes you have to wonder what planet barristers are on with mitigation pleas like that.

 

I'm definitely not one of the hang 'em bunch when it comes to sentencing but I'd have thought 15 months was a bit light.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:16 PM

Even more shocking than the lenient sentence is the fact that a prominent NSPCC member wrote him a character reference praising his charity work and his trustworthiness ! A serious misjudgement by them I think which may backfire badly on them.

#3 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,747 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

not long enough


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#4 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,679 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

http://www.judiciary...ks-17062013.pdf

 

The sentencing remarks to give a better picture of the offences, mitigation and guidelines.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#5 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,465 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:19 PM

Even more shocking than the lenient sentence is the fact that a prominent NSPCC member wrote him a character reference praising his charity work and his trustworthiness ! A serious misjudgement by them I think which may backfire badly on them.

 

That's absolutely bizarre.

 

The NSPCC are fireproof though.  They'll be fine.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#6 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,747 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:21 PM

Even more shocking than the lenient sentence is the fact that a prominent NSPCC member wrote him a character reference praising his charity work and his trustworthiness ! A serious misjudgement by them I think which may backfire badly on them.

the NSPCC person would have been put in a tricky position.

at the time hall ws innocent, not even having been tried. He/she would have been honour bound to tell the truth of Hall's charity work. Although how that charity work would men that he therefore wasnt a paedophile defys logic.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#7 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:23 PM

 

the NSPCC person would have been put in a tricky position.
at the time hall ws innocent, not even having been tried. He/she would have been honour bound to tell the truth of Hall's charity work. Although how that charity work would men that he therefore wasnt a paedophile defys logic.

The reference was written after he had already pleaded guilty as mitigation for the sentencing hearing. Dave Whelan also wrote him a glowing testimony apparently.

#8 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,747 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:34 PM

 The reference was written after he had already pleaded guilty as mitigation for the sentencing hearing. Dave Whelan also wrote him a glowing testimony apparently.

in that case  that logic is defied to an even greater extent.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#9 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,088 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:34 PM

Hall has irregular heartbeat,sinusitis, enlarged prostate-and now because of this,depression & trouble sleeping - well that makes it ok then


Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#10 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,162 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:45 PM

http://www.judiciary...ks-17062013.pdf

 

The sentencing remarks to give a better picture of the offences, mitigation and guidelines.

Thanks for that.  I admit that I struggle to understand concurrency rules for sentencing in cases like this and always have done, I remember a very long discussion during my law degree on this subject where I just couldn't get it.  On one count alone he was given 15 months and that set his entire sentence almost as if he had committed no other crime, where's the criminal justice in that? 


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#11 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:11 PM

 

Thanks for that.  I admit that I struggle to understand concurrency rules for sentencing in cases like this and always have done, I remember a very long discussion during my law degree on this subject where I just couldn't get it.  On one count alone he was given 15 months and that set his entire sentence almost as if he had committed no other crime, where's the criminal justice in that?

It is just another mystery of the judicial system I'm afraid. All in all, when you consider there are 13 victims and he will actually serve approximately 32 weeks then it amounts to around 2.5 weeks per victim.

Another thing which I find hard to fathom is this issue of only being to pass sentence based on the maximum punishment at the time of the offence. For 2 similar offences, committed 20 years apart, one had a maximum of 2 years and another a maximum of 5 years purely down to the time they were committed. If he'd committed them last year the maximum would be 10 years. It seems a little bizarre that the same offence can carry vastly differing punishments simply because of when they were committed.

#12 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,162 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:22 PM

 It is just another mystery of the judicial system I'm afraid. All in all, when you consider there are 13 victims and he will actually serve approximately 32 weeks then it amounts to around 2.5 weeks per victim.

Another thing which I find hard to fathom is this issue of only being to pass sentence based on the maximum punishment at the time of the offence. For 2 similar offences, committed 20 years apart, one had a maximum of 2 years and another a maximum of 5 years purely down to the time they were committed. If he'd committed them last year the maximum would be 10 years. It seems a little bizarre that the same offence can carry vastly differing punishments simply because of when they were committed.

The second point I can understand.  If something isn't illegal and you do it with no care in the world then the government changes the laws then prosecutes you then that's just wrong.  Same with sentencing, if, say, you commit a speeding offence and expect to get a 3 point hit and £60 fine then the government introduces flogging to help stop speeding, you'd feel mightily hard done to to be sentenced to flogging when you committed the crime before the law was brought in.  Hall has to be judged against the criminality and sentencing guidelines of the time he committed the offences.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#13 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,780 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:24 PM

It may sound odd, but think of it this way.  "bring back the death penalty now and clear the prisons of all murderers sentenced under abolition.



#14 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:28 PM

 

The second point I can understand.  If something isn't illegal and you do it with no care in the world then the government changes the laws then prosecutes you then that's just wrong.  Same with sentencing, if, say, you commit a speeding offence and expect to get a 3 point hit and £60 fine then the government introduces flogging to help stop speeding, you'd feel mightily hard done to to be sentenced to flogging when you committed the crime before the law was brought in.  Hall has to be judged against the criminality and sentencing guidelines of the time he committed the offences.

Its just another inconsistency in the system though. Lets say someone confesses today to a murder committed in 1964, just prior to the abolition of capital punishment, then you wouldn't expect them to be sentenced to death even though that was the appropriate punishment at the time of the offence.

#15 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,780 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:34 PM

indeed, they may well not have been killed by the state in any case. We didn't just kill anybody, you know...we were highly particular about whose life we ended.



#16 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,747 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:56 PM

Hall has irregular heartbeat,sinusitis, enlarged prostate-and now because of this,depression & trouble sleeping - well that makes it ok then

he'll have a lot in common with his fellow prisoners then


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#17 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:58 PM

And what do the 'let's all defend Cregan' brigade think of it?

 

15 months is not nearly long enough. Age, health and comparisons to Saville should not mitigate a harsher sentence.


Fides invicta triumphat

#18 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 05:51 PM

The second point I can understand.  If something isn't illegal and you do it with no care in the world then the government changes the laws then prosecutes you then that's just wrong.  Same with sentencing, if, say, you commit a speeding offence and expect to get a 3 point hit and £60 fine then the government introduces flogging to help stop speeding, you'd feel mightily hard done to to be sentenced to flogging when you committed the crime before the law was brought in.  Hall has to be judged against the criminality and sentencing guidelines of the time he committed the offences.

It's crazy and I don't care that he might feel hard done by, the law is an ass in this case.

 

If instead of your 3 point fine and £60, you were hit with 5 points and £100, you'd get no sympathy from anyone if you started "But, it's not fair...". It's only introduction of the word "flogging" that makes your point. And it would be absurd to flog anyone for a speeding offence at any time.



#19 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 5,056 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:19 PM

15 months is not nearly long enough. Age, health and comparisons to Saville should not mitigate a harsher sentence.

 

Agreed! 15 months for some of those things mentioned in the report someone linked doesn't anywhere near long enough in my opinion. I know sod all about the law in terms of prosecuting someone but 15 months is pathetic no matter how old or frail Hall is.


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#20 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,837 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:25 PM

The fact that he is so old now that he is punished means that he has got away with his crimes for too long. Is it just me or does it feel like rewarding him for evading justice?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users