Archived

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

ckn

Stuart Hall - Jailed for 15 months

62 posts in this topic

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.

And that would have been some justice but even so just because the courts didn't take this kind of crime very seriously in the "dark ages" doesn't mean that they shouldn't now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

According to Norman Tebbit Savile wasn't such a bad lad anyway

 

"I've got no doubt Jimmy Savile was a very odd fellow, and I'm pretty sure he was in breach of the law on a number of matters. But I do not know that it's possible, 40 years on, to do justice in the sense of knowing just how many of those allegations are complete and true."

His wife is nodding as he goes on: "Jimmy did a great deal of good, as well as wrong. And in anybody's life, you have to look at both sides of the ledger."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/15/norman-tebbit-interview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder people have no faith in the system.

 

He should hang for what he had done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 victims?he must have had access to lots of children in all those years on its a knockout.15 months is not long enough, he will be out before Christmas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noted in the judge's remarks that he referred to meetings between Hall's defence team and the CPS and then yesterday it emerged that charges of rape were allowed to lie on file. Lying on file means that the CPS did not drop the charges but opted not to pursue them in court. I can't help thinking that Hall's change of plea to guilty on the molestation charges was part of a deal to avoid the more serious rape charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or as he was sticking to not guilty on the rape charge, save the alleged victim from giving evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

or as he was sticking to not guilty on the rape charge, save the alleged victim from giving evidence?

Perhaps, but I suspect Hall's lawyers took advantage of the plea bargaining opportunity hence his unexpected change of plea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or as he was sticking to not guilty on the rape charge, save the alleged victim from giving evidence?

Hard to imagine that someone capable of such despicable behaviour suddenly developed a conscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope there's some legal loophole for that sentence to be challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I have never understood this issue of concurrent sentences. It's cropped up on a number of occasions..seems daft to me.

 

As for Hall's sentence, isn't this an opportunity for restorative justice to be added to his sentence, especially as I understand that the sentence is already under review?

 

see http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/17/stuart-hall-sentence-attacks-review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In handing down concurrent prison sentences, the judge gave Hall "a 25% discount" for his guilty plea.

There's his motivation for "coming clean".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I have never understood this issue of concurrent sentences. It's cropped up on a number of occasions..seems daft to me.

 

As for Hall's sentence, isn't this an opportunity for restorative justice to be added to his sentence, especially as I understand that the sentence is already under review?

 

see http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/17/stuart-hall-sentence-attacks-review

What makes it especially daft is that you can get 8 months for telling a lie about a speeding ticket but slightly under double that for 14 serious sexual assaults.  If you ran through three speeding cameras then you get three speeding tickets, it's never treated as one act of speeding, I can't see why they'd ever want to treat Hall's level of offences any more leniently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, less jailed for insulting the judge more for being a total nobber.

Agreed, but 2 years for mild abuse and acting the goat in court? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I have never understood this issue of concurrent sentences. It's cropped up on a number of occasions..seems daft to me.

Is it because the Government's potless ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it because the Government's potless ?

 

 

No, sentences running concurrently has gone on for ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Then that is what he should have served. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, as the case involves child abuse no sentence would have been deemed enough.

"13 years, that's only 1 year per child".

He'll be locked up, he's 80 odd, he will never be remembered for being the jovial tv/radio personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, as the case involves child abuse no sentence would have been deemed enough.

"13 years, that's only 1 year per child".

He'll be locked up, he's 80 odd, he will never be remembered for being the jovial tv/radio personality.

So he gets away with it most of his life and because he makes it past 80, not being remembered as a jovial personality is punishment enough? Yeah, sounds really harsh.

I hear all this ' he is 80+' 'he is a broken man' cobblers and it makes me puke. Evading justice for as long as you can should not be worthy of sympathy or leniency, it should make the actual punishment worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSPCC have put out a statement about the character reference Hall received:

I’m sure you will have seen and heard in the media the appalling case of Stuart Hall and his abuse of children – these were despicable acts on innocent victims.

Stuart Hall pleaded guilty to these crimes, and has now been sentenced to 15 months in prison - all in all we believe this sentence is too short and rightly has now been referred to the Attorney General for review. This is what I’ve been saying to the media, conscious of the lifelong impact on victims:

"Hall will be free within months but the trauma he caused his victims will stay with them a lot longer – possibly for the rest of their lives. He has shown total disregard for their feelings, even arrogantly branding them liars.

"Whilst it’s commendable that this case was pursued even after such a long passage of time the end result is not a great day for justice or for the victims."

The NSPCC remains totally committed to protecting children from such terrible abuse and the Hall case just makes us even more determined.

You may have seen in some of the coverage that one of our volunteers had signed a statement to the court about Stuart Hall. This was not approved by us, and the first we heard about it was just after the hearing. We reacted quickly by making it clear that these were not the views of the NSPCC. Our volunteer stepped down immediately.

We are determined not to allow anything to get in the way of supporting children who need us. As NSPCC supporters please be reassured that we will always work tirelessly and 100% in the interests of children.

I appreciate this is the second time in a week I’ve emailed you and don’t want to bombard you. Please remember you can always keep up to date on our latest news and views on our website

We rely entirely on your generosity and I want to thank you for your continuing support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So he gets away with it most of his life and because he makes it past 80, not being remembered as a jovial personality is punishment enough? Yeah, sounds really harsh.

I hear all this ' he is 80+' 'he is a broken man' cobblers and it makes me puke. Evading justice for as long as you can should not be worthy of sympathy or leniency, it should make the actual punishment worse.

In comparison, a 75 year old man was jailed for 12 years yesterday in Carlisle for similar offences which dated back to the 1960's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In comparison, a 75 year old man was jailed for 12 years yesterday in Carlisle for similar offences which dated back to the 1960's.

Right, so why was the sentence on Hall such a joke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right, so why was the sentence on Hall such a joke?

Probably because one had a leading expensive barrister and the other had a low-end legal aid appointed barrister. Money talks in the justice system, especially with its incestuous nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.