Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Stuart Hall - Jailed for 15 months

62 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not long enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That's not the point though, if the judge had not imposed concurrency of sentences then he'd have gone down for 9 and a half years as that's what all the sentences totalled up make.

 

Edited to change 5 years to 9 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, can the rest of you please self-moderate?  If I have to bin your posts I'll not be best pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A broad brush delete of all the posts that are dragging it off into pettiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pathetic sentence.

I very much agree

see previous posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017