Stuart Hall and that Guilty Plea.
Today, the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Justice Rafferty and Justice Macur, will decide whether the 15-month jail term that Stuart Hall received after pleading guilty to 14 counts of indecent assault, on girls as young as nine which includes one girl who was nine at the time.
The armchair moralisers who form their views from forums and newspaper accounts will learn whether three eminent judges, examining the actual evidence, agree with the term set by Preston crown court recorder, Judge Anthony Russell QC.
If Stuart Hal’s sentence is not increased, I confidently expect an outcry from the witch hunt followers. They will not be satisfied with mere justice – revenge is what they want.
There has been much speculation as to why Stuart Hall decided to plead guilty. The simplistic answer is because he WAS guilty. Others have pointed out that he was 83 years of age, in poor health, and possibly didn’t feel like spending his remaining days with such an odorous charge hanging over his head.
I, as is my contrarian way, have been pondering other reasons why a man should plead guilty. Let me tell you the sad tale of ‘Brendan’ as I shall call him, his sister ‘Sháuna’ and his little niece ‘Caitlin’. (I have given them false names for obvious reasons).
Brendan was the youngest of a large and dysfunctional Irish family. None too bright at the best of times, he has had treatment for various mental health issues over the years. Now aged 41, he copes with his life by drinking heavily, and living with his sister Sháuna. It is not hard to imagine that he may be a pain in the neck as a permanent house guest.
Caitlin, his little niece, complained to the Gardai via her Mother that ‘Uncle Brendan’ was a lot more than just a pain in the neck to have around the house – he had raped her when she was 10 years old on a date between 1 September 2004 and 28 February 2005.
That left Brendan with six drink-befuddled months to try to defend himself over. ‘Someone’ in the family said he would be a lot better off pleading guilty and throwing himself on the mercy of the court rather than trying to account for himself over every minute of six months.
“I knew there were days I could not account for as I had been drinking so much. My memory was never good; it’s almost non-existent now,” the man said.
Since Brendan was ‘overcome by panic’ and in a state of near nervous collapse at the thought of going to prison, he agreed to plead guilty. He began the long process of waiting for trial as a self confessed guilty paedophile.
Then a curious thing happened.
His sister, Sháuna, wrote to the Gardai and admitted that she had made her young daughter make these allegations. She said this was done because she suffered from depression and anorexia and wanted her brother out of the house.
“I told her a lot of stuff to say, to blame him and what kind of things he did. It took a lot of time to get her to understand, she didn’t want to do it.”
Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley has granted the man’s application to change his plea, and adjourned the case for mention.
She remanded the man on unconditional bail, removed him from the sex offender’s register and excused him from attending court on the next date.
Brendan is incontrovertibly innocent of the charge of rape and paedophilia – this is the first time I have heard any explanation as to why a man would plead guilty to such a charge – but how do you defend yourself on a rape charge ‘sometime between 2004 and 2005′ on someone you share a house with? If, for reasons of age or alcohol abuse, your memory is not as it should be, it is an impossible task – better to plead guilty and pray for leniency.
Strange how the main stream media aren’t so keen to publicise these cases, isn’t it?
Remember that when you consider the reasons why 83 year old Stuart Hall may have pleaded guilty.
July 28, 2013 at 19:25
-
I wondered about that too. Corporate lawyers don’t usually have much
contact with criminal lawyers, but I daresay he may have been able to pull a
few strings, make contacts etc., and might have been involved in discussions
over the plea bargain.
Or perhaps it was more a case of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1VgcxE9Lpw
- July 28, 2013 at 22:47
-
@Jonathan Mason
Corporate lawyers don’t usually have much contact with
criminal lawyers@
I’ve just noticed that Hall’s actual lawyer normally does Commercial
Sports Law…….
Practice Areas
Defamation and privacy; Media and entertainment;
Sport
http://www.legal500.com/firms/420/offices/1708/lawyers/60851
- July 28, 2013 at 22:57
-
Nice catch!
Strange choice of representation. Maybe a mistake, given
the outcome. Perhaps he thought he had a sporting chance.
- July 28, 2013 at 13:56
-
It was quite difficult to get any clear info on what Hall was charged with.
Looking on the Net, all I can find was tripe from the papers about what a
monster he is.
What happened was an obvious plea-bargain set up. Hall agrees to plead to
the lesser charges and the more serious ( the 9 year old and the supposed
rape) are dismissed because pleading guilty to the lesser charges might bias a
trial about the more serious. That almost suggests they had planned two
trials–the first on minor charges and the second on the serious ones. What
would they have done if Hall had stood fast on the not guilty plea . If he had
been still been found guilty on the lesser charges, would they have allowed
him to go to Trial on the serious ones and damn the bias (that they claimed to
be so unfair–once he had given in)?
Both sides had a problem. Hall’s is easy to see–at his age, you would not
buy green bananas. His fear would be dying in jail surrounded by hostile scum
on both sides of the law. They promised him the “heavy” charges would not be
put on him if he gives in and cops a plea. In the midst of the Saville-whipped
paedo-hysteria what would you do?.
At the same time the Yewtree gang is
facing danger of their own. Why charge Hall with laughable bum-touching
nonsense at all if you have the man bang to rights for some serious charges
(the rape/9 year would be–IF he did them) Why plea-bargain at all if he is
bang to rights. Because he isn’t–we will never know now but I’ll bet the
substance of those charges was fairly thin. I’ll bet that a competent lawyer
stood a good change of sinking the CPS case to the bottom of the sea. That
would be terrible for the Yewtree crew. The Saville -powered head of steam
would falter and maybe fall at the first hurdle if they didn’t get a
conviction.
Hall knows that if he gets a Judge/Jury who believe in
old-fashioned stuff like evidence/proof ( as George Zimmermann did–the Jury
anyway) etc, there is a good chance he can walk. If he gets a bunch of
emotion-pulled blubbers and his “victims” put on a good show, then, lack of
evidence or not he might still get the jailhouse death-scene. The CPS/coppers
will have made it clear that plead innocent/found guilty=the book thrown. So
he gives.
The Yewtreeers have their victory. Or rather they had it. I
imagine they will be none to pleased by the sentence-doubling antics of the
beaks. Before they had Hall to show their other set-up victims–give in and
we’ll go easy–now only a fool would take the plea-bargain and get shafted
twice over. Now they will plead not guilty and give their barristers (and us)
a chance to get at the truth. With good lawyers on their team, I suspect the
next few trials might just make the whole Yewtree gang wish they had a rock to
hide under. We shall see.
-
July 28, 2013 at 14:10
-
Very well put, and more than likely. Actually what I think, but better
than I could have said without taking up two pages. But what can one do
about it? We never got to see the evidence, so no one will ever
know.
Something very bad is going on in these cases, and I am beginning
to feel sick. But not nearly as sick as I will feel if Stuart Hall dies in
prison.
A Martyr is being born.
- July 28, 2013 at 14:18
-
July 28, 2013 at 14:55
-
Here, here – well said Sir, let’s remember that poor Bill Roache is due
up in September – bless him, I wish him well.
- July 28, 2013 at 18:26
-
@Mr Ecks
I’ve wondered as to the significance that his son is a member
of the legal profession, although his expertise lies in Corporate law
apparently.
He did win a “title” from some trade magazine or other,
according to the web: “Dealmaker of the Decade”….. [coughs politely]
- July 28, 2013 at 19:26
-
Mr Ecks,
You spoke my mind
- July 27, 2013 at 13:36
-
Apparently the prosecution played their ‘joker’ and THAT is why his
sentence time was doubled.
- July 28, 2013 at 11:32
-
LOL nice one
- July 27, 2013 at 10:04
-
So, at last, British ‘justice’ has now been reduced to mob law with judges
looking up the total number of green arrows in the comments section of papers
and taking into account the sob stories (sorry, victim statements) of the
‘victims’.
With the speed that ‘justice’ is going down hill, it won’t be long before
innocent or guilty and if guilty the length of internment will be decided by a
poll in the papers or a phone in from a TV broadcast. On the bright side, if
that happens, think of the cost savings of dismantling the network supporting
the judges and sacking the judges themselves.
-
July 27, 2013 at 08:22
-
Stuart Hall’s most heinous crime was that shit “It’s a Knockout”, he
wilfully and publicly took part in the ritual humiliation of the thick end of
our “community”.
And worse, he charged us for it, with no opportunity to avoid paying.
- July 27, 2013 at 08:32
-
“the thick end of our “community”.
That included our Royal family if memory serves me right.
- July 27, 2013 at 08:46
-
It has been suggested that The Queen has surrounded herself with pilots
of Helicopter Gun Ships and Search and Rescue experts. If this is true
then I can’t say I blame her. She doesn’t get very much compensation for
all that Crown Property that no one wants to talk about when it comes to
The Civil List.
-
July 27, 2013 at 09:09
-
- July 27, 2013 at 09:13
-
@right_writes
“It’s A Knockout” probably did a lot more than the
European Commission has ever done to encourage solidarity between the
European peoples. I can vividly remember always cheering for the plucky
little Belgians who rarely managed to achieve victory, and whilst the
Germans were initially annoying in their frequent successes, their evident
sense of humour about it all dispelled the caricature of the German as
gloomy nihilist. More than anything else, it was a game without frontiers,
and all of this was achieved without any need to refer Eddie Waring’s
decisions to the European Court of Justice.
-
July 27, 2013 at 11:19
-
@Moor Larkin…
““It’s A Knockout” probably did a lot more than the European
Commission has ever done to encourage solidarity between the European
peoples.”
Probably, but it didn’t/doesn’t stop them both verging on the criminal,
when it comes to attracting morons.
The BBC should be shut down… Just on the strength of its lamentable
internationalist programming… “It’s a Knockout”, “The Eurovision Song
Fest”… Oh and let us not forget… “Children in Need” a once a year
opportunity to steal yet more from the gullible British viewer.
- July 27, 2013 at 15:09
-
@ it didn’t/doesn’t stop them both verging on the criminal, when it
comes to attracting morons. @
I take exception to your implication………..
I
can only add that I was about 12 at the time……..
http://www.jsfnet.co.uk/media_news_1969_01.htm
- July 26, 2013 at 23:59
-
What I can’t understand is how middle aged women claim to be traumatised
by, usually, not very serious incidents 40 years ago. I was quite badly
attacked many years ago, it was unpleasant and I was very nervous about being
out at night for about year. However I forgot about it after that and it
certainly didn’t affect my generally pretty happy life. What’s wrong with
these people? I might believe one who isn’t looking for compensation, what a
curse that has become, how will money help with a trauma as deep as they
claim? I don’t know if SH is guilty of much but I think it was all wrong to
double his sentence, as you said that is not justice but mob rule whipped up
by an irrisponsible media.
- July 27,
2013 at 06:58
-
“What’s wrong with these people?”
For that, blame the huuuuuuge industry in medicalisation of what can be
normal human behaviour (see the tremendous rise in diagnoses of Aspergers,
ADHD and dyslexia) and the constant refrain from the wymmin’s studies mob
that we’re all victims, that ordinary human interaction is actually abusive
and someone ought to pay goddamit!
And, of course, then there’s the compo culture and fame culture to throw
into the mix,
- July 26, 2013 at 23:25
-
It’s so difficult to 2nd guess why SH decided to plead guilty after
declaring that he would fight the accusations against him vigorously. I did
wonder if the fight had gone from him because of his age and frail health and
perhaps to save his family further trauma. I imagine that there was more than
one reason and that he added all up. Some one proclaimed before the case that
those who had made the allegations were not known to each other and that their
testimony was very similar, forming a pattern, a lot of information is given
and so it’s easy for someone to give similar evidence of what might have
happened. I have said before here, that in the world of social networking it’s
so easy to contact people so I can’t see how it could be known that persons
were not known to each other for certain. I’m not really interested in S H but
I do wonder about the way the judicial system is operating these days, it’s
very scary how evidence can be manipulated and more scary how sentencing can
be changed on the whim of newspaper articles. Blood bating seems to have
become a national sport over recent years and I don’t like the fact that the
rules of law are changing to accommodate it. The thought of vengeance seems to
contradict all that I thought was good about the UK legal system.
-
July 27, 2013 at 00:29
-
Yes, and yet from what we know of the Hall incidents, there does not seem
to be a common pattern. For example it was said by the prosecutor that he
would isolate his victims and then have his way with them, but in the case
of the 9-year-old girl whose leg he touched, it seems that it was in her
parents house and in the presence of her brother. If this is correct, then
it doesn’t fit that pattern. I mention this, because this offense with the
nine-year-old seems to be regarded as one of the most serious of his
offenses because of her age, though on the face of it, touching her leg
doesn’t sound like much if he didn’t touch her genitals, expose himself, put
her hand on his crotch, etc.
- July 27, 2013 at 00:53
-
@ It’s so difficult to 2nd guess why SH decided to plead guilty after
declaring that he would fight the accusations against him vigorously. @
One strange aspect of this case that may go some way to explain it is the
massive change that took place. In January when he was first arraigned there
were three charges only. http://www.thejournal.ie/stuart-hall-bbc-abuse-744070-Jan2013/
By May he was facing another eleven. One question that might reasonably
be asked if how did this happen. and happen so quickly? The two generally
seen as most heinous – the 9 year old and the 13 year old – were two of the
original three whilst the third was possibly the most innocuous – when all
that was alleged he merely touched a girls breast at a publicity event.
Reading back it seems this least serious charge of all was apparently the
first allegation made. But when it was just three, he seemed determined to
defend himself, notwithstanding that they would be the most embarrassing for
him probably.
It all does bear some comparison with the Savile affair, where the very
first Duncroft allegation seemed to be the Beef Biryani incident, and a
woman who claimed her breast was touched in a Duncroft corridor. But then, a
whole flood of much more serious allegations ensued as the case gained
traction in the press.
- July 27, 2013 at 16:54
-
This is a very good point. But look, this is from the Daily Mail:
In a lengthy ruling, Lord Judge said that Hall knew the truth and was
fully alert to the possible advantages of manipulating the media.
At that point, hoping to escape justice and trying to use the media to
possibly influence potential jurors, he ‘traduced’ 13 women who had been
assaulted by him.
Lord Judge said: ‘He did plead guilty but not before he had publicly
and deliberately attacked the victims.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2378805/Stuart-Halls-unduly-lenient-sentence-DOUBLED-30-months.html#ixzz2aGDdjuCt
Follow
us: @MailOnline on Twitter DailyMail on Facebook
The appeal judges seem to have made a mistake here, but presumably this
is now beyond appeal.
The other point that strikes me is that the whole sentencing business
is a travesty if the decision as to whether sentences for different
offenses have to be served consecutively or not depends on factors that
are not understood by the defendant, his lawyers, or the public.
This ruling also seems like a slap on the hand for Judge Anthony
Russell who previously sentenced Hall, because his ruling already took
into account Hall’s declaration that the charges were false and reduced
the mitigation of the guilty plea for that reason. Now the court of appeal
has ruled that Hall’s statement must be regarded as an aggravating factor
regardless of the fact that he pled guilty, so in fact there is no
reduction of his sentence at all for pleading guilty.
It will be interesting to see what legal precedents set by this case
will hold in future cases, because there seem to be several.
- July 26, 2013 at 21:08
-
I don’t know enough about the Hall case or many other cases mentioned in
this blog but I take Anna’s point about pleas entered for reasons other than
‘guilt’ in the sense of clear and obvious guilt with
premeditation.
Criminal cases can be ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ and in complex
cases it takes huge resources to get to all facts that are or could be
relevant. I think there are loads of interests at stake, the accused, the
victims, the state (and its credibility in administering both Law and
Justice), other victims of similar crimes both in the past and in the future—-
even other perpetrators. Loads of interests but the English system is
adversarial —and its down to the accused alone to defend himself and bargain
if you like with the system (a system which encourages guilty pleas both in
terms of criminal tariff paid,financial incentive and uncertainty). I doubt
the present adversarial system serves all the interests well. Much better to
have an examining magistrate (gotta be completely independent of course—no
politics involved as in the Hall case) who has control of the whole
proceedings and can weigh up all the interests properly—a consensus approach
to reaching the truth rather than the game presently played by middle class
lawyers with (predominantly) working class pawns
- July 26, 2013 at 21:01
-
As a general point, I can’t help wondering how many of our stars of the
popular music world spent their halcyon years in a daze of booze and funny
cigarettes, surrounded by whichever groupies managed to sneak backstage. They
must, in all honesty, have no idea who they were having sex with at any
specified date/time. Some of them may well be feeling very vulnerable now,
because in a him versus her court case, no jury would find his denials
reliable.
In fact, almost anyone could makes any allegations against them.
The only info any accuser would need, would be a concert schedule.
- July 26, 2013 at 21:42
-
Monty
“The only info any accuser would need, would be a concert
schedule.”
Given that Savile accusers can’t usually pick the right building for the
locations of programmes where they were allegedly abused, (Most of them pick
BBCTV Center because it’s the only one they’ve heard of) I doubt that mere
details like that will matter – especially if it is Yewtree doing the
“investigating”.
Wrong date, wrong venue, wrong city, wrong country,
wrong band….meh!
- July 26, 2013 at 22:01
-
There was less booze, funny fags and shagging than you would imagine
going on backstage. Most back stage areas are dreary and often double as
storage space as well. Most of the stars of the show got out of the area as
soon as they could, often the motor would be running and they would walk off
stage and straight into the car. To the audience the life of the entertainer
seems glamorous and so it should if their doing their job right but in
reality it’s just hard slog from one town to the next. It’s a peripatetic
life sometimes punctuated with a long stay in summer season but not much
chance to mess around then because the wife and kids go to. If you were an
also ran on the bill it was even drearier – no booze or funny fags as the
driving licence was too valuable to lose – women maybe if there was an
opportunity, but the women who hung around back stage were after a star name
mainly as a conquest. Often the stage door keeper was a jobs worth so not
very many women got past him without a pass. One of the best places I ever
worked in the UK was at the Lakeside International Club, now the home of the
World Darts Championship. Owner Bob Potter made certain the artists were
well cared for back stage and so there was no reason to go out front, in
fact artists were not allowed out front. The back stage area was furnished
with fantastic dressing rooms en suite and in the green room there was a TV
and snooker table with a small bar and food service. There were people at
the entrances and so no one without a pass got through back stage. There is
a code of practice and protocol back stage; Strangers are not allowed to
wander about in the area where other artists keep their possessions, female
artists can’t take a handbag on stage when performing and so in the absence
of a dressing room key (where would you keep it?) we need to know that our
belongings are safe.
The problem is that a false impression of
entertainers, and the back stage area has been created, which seems to have
been made out to be a bordello.
-
July 26, 2013 at 17:01
-
As to whether Stuart Hall is innocent or guilty, I cannot say as I was not
there.
However, if British justice is to mean anything, then there has to be
balance between victim and accused.
This is why such things as “statutes of limitation” exist, because after
the passage of sufficient time (about 7-years), memory and recollection become
hazy, especially in the absence of trauma.
We should speak against the halo of victimhood and acknowledge equal rights
to both accuser and accused. There is a point at which a prosecution becomes
unsustainable because it is ‘indefensible’, i.e. due to the passage of time it
is simply no longer possible to provide a reliable defence against such
accusations.
-
July 26, 2013 at 22:20
-
IANAL but I understand “statutes of limitation” (certainly in the UK)
apply to parties of a contract.
Criminal law has no time limitation.
e.g PC Keith Blakelock murder at Broadwater Farm riots.
Continued pursuance of Nazi war criminals etc.
- July 27, 2013 at 14:48
-
There seems not the same historical interest in Martin McGuinness as
there is in the Parachute Regiment. The winners always write the history….
- July 27, 2013 at 15:32
-
I was referring to the fact that “statutes of limitation” in other
civilized countries criminal codes, but not the UK criminal code.
-
July 26, 2013 at 15:43
-
There was the case of a man called Paul Ingram in America who pleaded
guilty to molesting his daughters, in the midst of the Satanism Panic. The
author of the book I read about the case (Lawrence Wright, who recently wrote
a fine book about Scientology) demonstrates the unlikelihood of the
allegations, and suggests the guilty plea was more likely do to the
suggestibility of the poor man. He was sent to jail, and was released a few
years ago.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Remembering-Satan-Vintage-Lawrence-Wright/dp/0679755829/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374849209&sr=1-3
(In
the edition I read, Valerie ‘you really fixed it for us, Jimmy!’ Sinason wrote
the foreword.)
I don’t think that is what happened in the case of Stuart Hall, but it is
another example of how false guilty pleas can come about.
- July 27,
2013 at 06:53
-
‘No Crueller Tyrannies’ by Dorothy Rabinowitz is also an intriguing (if
thoroughly depressing) read.
-
July 26, 2013 at 15:20
-
At least this obliterates the con of plea bargaining for anybody other old
men who had the misfortune of appearing on UK TV in the 60s, 70s or 80s and
having a penis – “if you plead guilty and your sentence will be doubled”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXlSmLVoblE
-
July 26, 2013 at 13:53
-
ZERO COMPENSATION. What a simply marvellous idea. As far as I know, victims
of crimes don’t normally get compensated by the perpetrators. I didn’t when
some nob head nicked all of my jewelry. This was very traumatic as it was
grossly under insured and a lot of it was irreplacable, and of great
sentimental value. And they caught him, although no one bothered to inform me
at the time. He introduced himself one day in a Pub. That was an assault all
by itself.
I most certainly did not suffer any where near as badly when I was sexually
assaulted by a dirty old man in The Odeon in Neasden some time in 1955. Or was
it 1956?
- July 26, 2013 at 15:15
-
OT:
Elena ‘andcart
“I didn’t when some nob head nicked all of my
jewelry. This was very traumatic as it was grossly under insured and a lot
of it was irreplacable…”
A friend of mine who had picked up pieces of Victorian and early 20th
Century jewelry over the years – because that was what she liked – was
“compensated” for this not by money to buy more similar things but with
credit at a high street chain jewelers full of stuff she doesn’t like. Over
a decade later she still hasn’t redeemed all the credit having just used it
for odd presents for other people over the years.
Incidentally this was after a fire set by burglars. Relatively few things
were burned, most had smoke damage. The insurers had a company take away
everything to be assessed and either cleaned and returned or written off and
supposedly junked. Many valuable things which it would have been easy to
clean were suspiciously written off.
So, no suspicions of backhanders and
“junked” stuff not making it to the tip there then!
- July 27, 2013 at 08:25
-
At a later date an insurance company offered me £500 for a one ounce
Platinum Wedding Ring. I told them to replace it. At which point they paid
me the £1,000 I had originally asked for.
And yep, a lot of my jewelry
was antique, and most of the rest were things I had made from some very
beautiful stones. All irreplaceable. I still mind now after thirty years,
when I forgot about the dirty old man almost as soon as it happened. But
perhaps I should now sue The Odeon in Neasden. I have no doubt that I
could pull a sob story about my “Ruined Life” fit to win an Oscar. I mean,
for heaven’s sake, two divorces and far too many children because I didn’t
know how to say, “No, bugger off.”
- July 26, 2013 at 13:17
-
Well, 30 months now. I look forward to reading the reasoning, as the
original sentencing judge appeared to me to have exercised great care in his
decision.
- July 26, 2013 at 13:31
-
That’s over two years. I suspect he’ll die in prison.
- July
26, 2013 at 13:53
-
I suspect that’s the plan.
- July 26, 2013 at 13:55
-
He will still be out on parole after 25% of the sentence.
He may have agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charges in an
agreement not to pursue the greater charge of rape, which was set
aside.
I find the ruling of the appeal court quite bizarre in that they say
that the original sentence does not take into account public sentiment.
The original sentencing was accompanied by a closely reasoned argument on
a number of axes. Now it seems that the reduction in sentence for pleading
guilty has been completely nullified.
I find it hard to believe that senior judges consider this to be a
legitimate point, as there is no reference to public sentiment in the
sentencing guidelines. The doubling of the sentence does not take into
account public sentiment that there is a hysterical witch hunt going on
driven by compensation mania.
- July 26, 2013 at 14:44
-
I must add, that having worked with Florida’s “sexual predators” who
include many pedophiles with offences like rape, buggery, oral sex (both
ways and both sexes), showing pornography to children, recording
pornography with children, exposing themselves to children, being
masturbated by children, abducting children for sexual purposes, and so
on, there is something deliciously Edwardian and recherche about Stuart
Hall’s offences such as touching a girl on her leg or kissing a young
adolescent on the mouth. Britain is actually lucky if these are what
pass for serious sexual offences and men who touched a girl’s leg forty
years in horseplay ago are still racked by guilt.
- July 26, 2013 at 14:53
-
@I find the ruling of the appeal court quite bizarre in that they say
that the original sentence does not take into account public
sentiment……………. I find it hard to believe that senior judges consider
this to be a legitimate point, as there is no reference to public
sentiment in the sentencing guidelines. @
Meanwhile, in another court-room in another town…………..
“The judge also added: “I trust that those who have been so critical
of the service prosecuting authority and the court martial process –
particularly those who made unfounded and uninformed remarks under the
cloak of Parliamentary privilege – now realise how inappropriate and
wrong their criticisms were.”…………………….. But he said there were
“exceptional circumstances” that allowed the court to suspend the
sentence “because of your exceptional character” and that he was not a
danger to society.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/ex-sas-sniper-nightingale-gets-suspended-sentence-1-3015766
- July
26, 2013 at 15:21
-
“I find it hard to believe that senior judges consider this to be
a legitimate point, as there is no reference to public sentiment in the
sentencing guidelines.”
When did ‘public sentiment’ start to creep in to the legal system
anyway? There’s always an outcry when a drunk driver who mows down a kid
gets a lenient sentence & the judge usually says ‘This is all the
law allows for this.’
Can he now say ‘…but since the public are upset *reaches for black
cap*..I sentence you to hang by the neck until you are dead’?
- July 26, 2013 at
15:43
- July 26, 2013 at 15:49
-
The biggest public outcry was when two little kids mowed down
another little kid.
……… the two boys, by then aged 11, were found guilty of Bulger’s
murder at the Preston court on 24 November 1993, becoming the youngest
convicted murderers of the 20th century.[39] The judge, Mr. Justice
Morland, told Thompson and Venables that they had committed a crime of
“unparalleled evil and barbarity… In my judgment, your conduct was
both cunning and very wicked.”[40] Morland sentenced them to be
detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure, with a recommendation that they
should be kept in custody for “very, very many years to come”,[9]
recommending a minimum term of eight years.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
The
editors of The Sun newspaper handed a petition bearing nearly 280,000
signatures to Home Secretary Michael Howard, in a bid to increase the
time spent by both boys in custody.[42] This campaign was successful,
and in July 1994 Howard announced that the boys would be kept in
custody for a minimum of fifteen years
The case led to public anguish, and moral panic in Britain.[7] Tony
Blair, then the Shadow Home Secretary, gave a speech in Wellingborough
during which he said: “We hear of crimes so horrific they provoke
anger and disbelief in equal proportions… These are the ugly
manifestations of a society that is becoming unworthy of that
name.”[7] Prime Minister John Major said that “society needs to
condemn a little more, and understand a little less”.
- July
26, 2013 at 21:13
-
Another example of public-sentiment-driven justice-fudge can be
seen the the case of Nightingale, the SAS soldier who ‘forgot’ he’d
liberated a pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from Iraq. He
did it, he knew it was illegal, he was clearly guilty.
His initial,
and modest, sentence of 18 months was whipped up into a public frenzy
(all soldiers are wonderful, even those who incidentally commit
serious firearm crimes) such that it was felt necessary to hold a
re-trial.
The re-trial reached the same verdict (couldn’t have
reached any other, given the clear evidence) but the sentence was
cunningly contrived to try to satisfy both sides – a nominally more
severe 2-year jail sentence, but suspended for 12 months. So it’s
bigger jail-time in theory, but no jail-time in practice. A
score-draw.
And all because of pandering to a created public/media frenzy. Is
it justice ?
- July 27, 2013 at 00:27
-
“About the same time we got the lachrymose ‘victim’s statement’.
The law is supposed to protect the accused against the power of the
state – not mollify the victim.”
Like you, I dislike the idea of victim statements because they have
the potential to disturb the principle of proportionality of
sentencing between offences. That said, they do accord with the common
law principle of taking the victim as you find him. In Hall’s case,
however, I understand some of the victims wrote to the Court
expressing their disappointment at the AG’s decision to request a
review.
What we appear to dealing with here, then, is a manifestation of
the displacement gap. The displacement gap being the punishment
preferred by the supporters of the victim (society in general,
perhaps) compared with a punishment arrived at by the careful
application of law. The theory goes that when displacement gap grows
to ‘critical’ levels it undermines the rule of law and it becomes
difficult to satisfy the public that the law is satiating the public’s
demand for revenge, albeit more measured revenge. The danger, then, is
that the public takes the law into its own hands, and law and order
heads towards collapse. Here, in my opinion, we have a manifestation
of the problem the law has, not in protecting the citizen from the
state (difficult with the UK’s constitutional settlement), but in
protecting the offender and future offenders from society.
No doubt you have your own view as to why the gap might have
approached critical level in this kind of case.
In any event and without the benefit of having read the judgment,
there are a number of cases which the court might have chosen to
justify the increased sentence. R -v- Philip Walker, for example, is a
good fit; Mr Walker having been sentenced to thirty six months. Of
course, Mr Walker did not stop offending of his own volition: he
retired and was separated from potential victims. I doubt, and I hope
I’m wrong, there will be any attempt to distinguish Mr Hall’s self
imposed rehabilitation from the case or cases used as a benchmark.
It’s all very sad.
- July 27, 2013 at 14:56
-
@ What we appear to dealing with here, then, is a manifestation of
the displacement gap. @
In the Bulger case a 280,000 signature petition by The Sun led the
Home Secretary to double the sentence. At the time I imagine there
were 60,000,000 people in Britain. Why should 0.004% of the population
dictate the law? It’s a manifestation of the “Westminster Bubble” I
should think.
- July 26, 2013 at 13:06
-
@Moor Larkin……agreed he is not just S. Hall of Bridlington, he is Stuart
Hall O.B.E. famous broadcaster etc etc , mixed with Royalty and the rest…..a
man who had a very public reputation and a degree of wealth I presume
therefore if he believes he is truly innocent would have the means to prove it
and yes I know he is of advanced years but would think that his reputation
would certainly be worth keeping intact instead of which his legacy is going
to be that of ‘dirty old man, pervert or whatever else…..not a legacy that I
would ever wish on family or place in history just to get a more lenient
sentence.
- July 26, 2013 at 13:28
-
@Elvera
Yes, I agree. I said not so long ago that “guilty” or
“innocent” Mr. Hall has put himself in whatever hell he is now in. There is
no point in having a court system if you do not then accept the verdicts.
It’s a bit off-topic but I’ve done a blogpost here:
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-school-that-died-of-shame.html
about
a very historic Abuse matter, where the head-teacher was taken to court FOUR
times and FOUR times was found innocent, the last time being 1979. As you
will see from the latest comments there is now a campaign to find him guilty
anyway, from a historic perspective. This seems to be based on
“corroboration” and the view that there could not have been so much smoke
without a terrible fire having burned. The CPS is resisting according to my
commentator but this cannot equate with giving victims a voice can it. There
is a huge dilemma her that the law needs to deal with and the obvious
solution in zero compensation so only the principle is at stake, plus
probably a statute of limitations for simple reasons of practicality.
- July 26,
2013 at 12:47
-
I think this is just the start of a script by which the secret ones can
remove any and all they fear not to be secure
- July 26, 2013 at 15:14
-
@belinus
Nothing secret about Operation Yewtree. It’s hiding in plain
sight…………….
- July 26,
2013 at 12:45
-
Groovy stuff coony even though your half french now
- July 26, 2013 at 15:08
-
That should be ‘you’re’ (it’s short for ‘you are’. ‘Your’ is the
possessive – as in ‘your laptop’.
P.S. Ms Raccoon, even if residing in French France, is without a shadow
of a doubt, British through and through. Even her stripey tail.
- July 26, 2013 at 11:30
-
But in the example you give Anna it was one person who was the accuser
whereas in the Stuart Hall case there are multiple complainants….are you
suggesting they are all guilty of false accusations?
- July 26, 2013 at 11:32
-
Nope, I am not passing any opinion on the veracity of the claims – but I
am pointing out that a guilty plea does not automatically mean that the
person admits guilt, merely that they can find no way of defending
themselves and pleading guilty does at least mitigate the sentence.
-
July 26, 2013 at 11:44
-
I came across this interesting piece about ‘plea’ bargaining UK style
…… I’ve just skimmed but this appears to indicate that this involves the
accused KNOWING what sentence he/she is likely to get for pleading guilty
…… obviously, there are sentencing guidelines …… anyways read this …..
- July 26, 2013 at
12:02
-
And the new regulations on legal aid payments mean that a bonus will
be paid if the client agrees to plead guilty – how will that affect the
advice they are given by their legal team?
- July 26, 2013 at 12:14
-
Maybe the return of the Spanish Inquisition, as sub-contractors,
not to extract a confession, merely a ‘Guilty’ plea?
- July 26, 2013 at 11:51
-
@Elevera
If it was Stuart Hall of Bognor Lane, Bridlington, multiple
accusations might be more significant than for this Stuart Hall. Fame is the
spur. Plus the degree of hurt claimed can become grotesque. One of the most
publicised of the Savile Assaults was what (at worst) was Savile playing
that old schoolboy joke of putting your hand on the chair of the girl in
front in the Assembly Hall, so that she sits on it. The Sun parlayed that
idiotic prank on Top of the Pops, played upon a grown woman of 18 (possibly
19) into a life-destroying assault on a teenage child who then grew up to be
about 50 and had failed to bond with her husband because of the trauma. They
got her to add to that the suspicion of a paedo-ring because a cameraman
allegedly told her not to get so het-up; it was just Jimmy. On screen all we
saw was her laughing. It’s this sort of ludicrous ballooning of offence that
makes me dubious about a lot of the stuff going around.
The most serious of the charges against Hall was the allegation from the
9-year-old daughter of a family friend, who he had known from being a baby
and the 13 year-old he kissed at a tennis club. Several of the other things
he admitted to seemed pretty innocuous. It seems entirely possible to me
that it was just one thing he did that then dawned on him was unforgivable
of him, and he caved in to everything because he knew that while he might
not be guilty of everything, he was guilty of something. A guilty person
with actual morals often finds comfort in punishment. It must be significant
that the most serious charges of all (of actual Rape) were dropped by the
prosecution.
- July 26, 2013 at 11:15
-
The alleged offences were supposed to have been committed between 1967 and
1986.
In the absence of forensic evidence, how can either party prove what
happened?
At least Monica had the (premeditated?) sense to preserve the dress
unwashed.
- July 27,
2013 at 06:51
-
And we all thought the Presidential shenanigans with cigars were the most outlandish claims we were ever likely to
hear….
- July 26, 2013 at 11:01
-
Stuart Hall must have received poor advice (or he chose to ignore good
advice), when he made that speech that he would fight to clear his name etc
etc, when he first attended court. I wonder what changed in that interim
period, because I, for one believed that he was telling the truth.
- July 26, 2013 at 22:19
-
Hall WAS GUILTY. No doubt of it.
There is no possible way that an erudite and well read man, in full
possession of his faculties, and with access to expensive expert legal
advice (contrasting sharply with Anna’s example of a poor drunken sot
accused of rape of his neice) would have done so if he realistically thought
that he could persuade a Crown Court jury of his innocence (with a very high
percentage acquittal rate – taken over all) or persuade the court, in the
alternative, that the case against him had no merit.
I believe he made that speech because he is an arrogant fool, who has got
away with touching up young girls, and worse, for decades, who thought that
his wholesome reputation, intelligence, wealth and general bonhomie would
see him through – that his expensive legal team would destroy any accusers
in court and/or get the case discontinued. If he initially thought this was
the case – and that seems to be the only logical explanation for his speech
outside the court, then the only explanation for his later guilty plea was
the realisation that this case was just not going to go away – as his
victims evidently had up till that point.
Hall clearly sickened Lord Justice Judge, who doled out something more
like a proper sentence. I wanted him to get more – like at least five years.
Hall is despicable and has brought all the oppobrium on himself.
Let him rot…
.
- July 28, 2013 at 23:24
-
The percentage of conviction for rape offences, at court, is some
60%
Perhaps you are confused by “only 6% of rapes end in conviction”, a
much used figure to enable the “guilty unless able to prove innocence
100%” campaigners to get law change (every man a rapist)
”
But Lady
Stern today demanded the figure no longer be used.
Other findings in
her wide-ranging report include:
:: as many as one in ten rape
allegations could be false
:: the binge drinking culture has increased
the risk of rape
:: nine in ten rapes go unreported
:: conflicting
targets for police and prosecutors is damaging the pursuit of
charges
:: a demand to make support for victims as high a priority as
convictions.
:: a demand to ensure rape victims do not have
compensation reduced because they were drunk, have previous convictions or
did not report the attack immediately.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html
- July 26, 2013 at 10:56
-
Regardless of opinions, here’s a direct duplicate of Brenadan’s story. This
is from local press coverage in June 2013 (local papers – the last bastion of
honest journalists?) and needless to say, it received no national coverage
whatsoever. I’m taking the liberty of reproducing it in full in case the
web-page disappears.
Clive James Anderson, 59, walked free from Carlisle Crown Court after a
jury found him not guilty of 10 counts of child sex abuse, including three
rapes. The former hotel worker, of Station Road, Wigton, who formerly lived in
Needham Drive, Workington, said he had never had a relationship with either a
woman or a child. His accuser – a woman now in her 40s – claimed he subjected
her to years of sexual abuse during the 1970s, starting when she was six. In
her evidence, the woman said she saw a counsellor after suffering flashbacks
and disturbing dreams. On the counsellor’s advice, she read a book called The
Courage to Heal, which argues that abuse victims often bury their traumatic
memories and that readers feeling uncomfortable as they read did so because
the memories were resurfacing. Defence barrister Elizabeth Muir said to the
woman: “Is it not the case that you have had difficulties in your personal
life over the years and read that book The Courage to Heal, and that you have
persuaded yourself that this had happened to you?” The woman claimed the abuse
happened on a weekly basis at a house in which there were 10 people. In her
evidence, the woman insisted that she knew she had been abused before she went
for counselling, but she had forgotten about it. The court heard from a
psychiatrist who is a recognised expert in false memory syndrome, Dr Janet
Boakes. Asked if people who have false memories believe them, she said: “Yes.
“They are not liars: They are reporting what they believe to have happened to
them, but in many cases it can be shown objectively that it could not have
happened.” She said such memories emanated from a misunderstanding of how
memory works, in particular from the idea that it was natural for an abused
child to forget what had happened to them. But there was no evidence that the
normal response to atrocities was to forget them. “The normal response to a
serious or significant trauma of any kind is that it can’t be forgotten: It
haunts you,” she said. In her closing speech, Mrs Muir told the jury: “People
do not forget being raped over the years.”
Mrs Muir said the expert could not say whether or not the complainant had
false memories but, given that issue and the “contradictions” highlighted in
the evidence, the jury could not be sure that Mr Anderson had committed the
offences alleged. Earlier in her speech, Mrs Muir pointed out that Mr
Anderson’s accuser claimed he made her watch a pornographic video before
abusing her but at the time the house involved did not have a video recorder
in it.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-man-cleared-of-historic-abuse-and-rape-charges-1.1063185?referrerPath=news
I’m sure that if the *Savile Police* and the *Investigative Journalists*
had been in charge, poor old Clive would have been long banged up and his
house demolished, to ensure his victim got over the trauma and was able enjoy
her compo without being haunted by memories.
-
July 26, 2013 at 11:04
-
Emm, yes Moor – the Gadai did indeed do their job properly
- July 26, 2013 at 10:54
-
‘The simplistic answer is because he WAS guilty’
I think Ill stick with that one.
- July 26,
2013 at 13:52
-
Yes, well, it saves thinking, I suppose.
- July 26, 2013 at 15:01
-
Better that than letting some numpty on twitter or on a blog do it for
me., as seems to be the normal case with you.
- July 26, 2013 at 10:44
-
Anna – spiked had a good piece on this recently –
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13731#.UfJEim2anSg
-
July 26, 2013 at 10:40
-
I think it is a distinct possibility that Stuart Hall pleaded guilty for
the wrong reasons. It is so long ago that I doubt he remembers precisely what
he did, if anything beyond a quick pat.
But sadly, I have become so cynical
about this witch hunt and the fibs that have been coming out, that I
automatically believe that they are all innocent. So better not put me on The
Jury.
- July 26, 2013 at 12:52
-
Elena, I can claim my past is almost certainly as clean as anyone’s, but
having become a teenager in the early ’60s, I took full advantage of the new
freedoms like many other fairly normal males whenever the opportunity
presented itself – which was far less often than the MSM (then & now)
would have us believe.
Were anyone (plodwise or otherwise) ask me what I did on the evening of
August 17th, 1966 I wouldn’t have a clue. I wouldn’t have a clue who I was
with, or if I hugged her “inappropriately” or anything. And in not having a
clue, I wouldn’t be able to convincingly refute any spurious allegations,
either. The same would hold true about the evening of August 17th, 1976, the
evening of August 17th, 1986, the evening of August 17th, 1996, the evening
of August 17th, 2006 and almost any other date thrown at me out of the blue.
As a 60-something year old, this lack of total recall was never the result
of exotic substances, just the normal deterioration of memory retention.
I tried to have a photographic memory, but it didn’t develop…
- July 26, 2013 at 18:21
-
British “justice” is now beyond mockery, the latest word that they have
corrupted to mean the exact opposite of it’s definition “justice”.
However we have to live in the bizzaro world constructed for us by the
likes of camoron and bliar, so I would suggest that if you are a
poverty-stricken pensioner you immediately attend the police station and
make a full confession of all the girlfriends/boyfriends you felt-up,
pinched their bums or said mean things to, please don’t forget to mention
the nine year-old girls/boys you played kiss-chase with, they were running
away from your attempted attention (thus by definition you are guilty).
Demand that they open a file and await the inevitable star-chamber hearings.
Hopefully the ex-girl/boy friends are now of a certain age and also
financially strapped, your eventual jailing then is assured. Judging by
recent examples you will housed in a luxurious country-house (a la Huhne)
fed three square meals, participate in wholesome exercise and fresh air all
at no cost to yourselves, much better than waiting in line for a seniors
home placement where you will be possibly abused, starved and ignored.
You know you are guilty, I certainly am, get down to the police
station.
-
July 26, 2013 at 10:37
-
It was interesting to hear first-hand the methods of “investigation” by
police regarding these celebrity historic accusations.
The reason they
remove their computers and mobile phones is not just to look for rude
photographs – they trawl through all of the telephone and email contacts of
the accused, and much of their “investigation” is spent contacting their
friends and associates, trying to irritate and embarrass them into giving
information which may lead them to trawl for another complaint against the
accused. Reading personal messages and emails trying to second-guess who they
may have shagged or kissed – and then contacting these third parties digging
for dirt.
Even when the accused has an army of famous females friends
willing to defend them in public (for if their male friends do that in public
then they too will become “the accused”), this is ignored as the police
continue their “investigation” regardless.
Something else to consider how an elderly ill gentleman may decide to opt
for that quick ‘guilty’ plea in the mistaken belief the nightmare will
end.
{ 78 comments }