Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's a difficult question, because as soon as you give an 83 year old man a sentence of several years, it becomes overwhelmingly likely that he will die in prison, in which case the punishment takes on a new dimension. 'So he should, as well as all of the younger offenders too' will no doubt be the cry... it's an argument, but if we are not going to do that, I think it's reasonable to consider that a 6 year sentence, say, means something different to an 83 year-old than it does to a 43-year old.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It's a difficult question, because as soon as you give an 83 year old man a sentence of several years, it becomes overwhelmingly likely that he will die in prison, in which case the punishment takes on a new dimension. 'So he should, as well as all of the younger offenders too' will no doubt be the cry... it's an argument, but if we are not going to do that, I think it's reasonable to consider that a 6 year sentence, say, means something different to an 83 year-old than it does to a 43-year old.

I still don't understand though, why the allegation of rape was left to lie on file when he'd admitted it. There's something fundamental going on here that doesn't seem to add up. (It's probably my lack of knowledge on the law and sentencing).

[bobo the clown]

It's a difficult question, because as soon as you give an 83 year old man a sentence of several years, it becomes overwhelmingly likely that he will die in prison, in which case the punishment takes on a new dimension. 'So he should, as well as all of the younger offenders too' will no doubt be the cry... it's an argument, but if we are not going to do that, I think it's reasonable to consider that a 6 year sentence, say, means something different to an 83 year-old than it does to a 43-year old.

.... though, interestingly, many of the admitted offences were committed when he was closer to 43 than 83. So, in fact, he's largely "got away with it" then, by keeping it at arms length for so long.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's a difficult question, because as soon as you give an 83 year old man a sentence of several years, it becomes overwhelmingly likely that he will die in prison, in which case the punishment takes on a new dimension. 'So he should, as well as all of the younger offenders too' will no doubt be the cry... it's an argument, but if we are not going to do that, I think it's reasonable to consider that a 6 year sentence, say, means something different to an 83 year-old than it does to a 43-year old.

I still don't understand though, why the allegation of rape was left to lie on file when he'd admitted it. There's something fundamental going on here that doesn't seem to add up. (It's probably my lack of knowledge on the law and sentencing).

I don't know the details, but my understanding was that he denies the rape and the prosecutors feel that there isn't enough evidence to warrant taking it further?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Cases are allowed to lie on file usually because dragging the case through court either wouldn't be in the public interest or would be too traumatic for the victim. In this case, I suspect the evidence was weak and largely circumstantial but backed up by allegations of a similar nature. The case could be brought before a court if he appealed sentence for example or if he commits a similar offence.

The Hall case has pointed out once again the ludicrous nature of sentencing and sentence reduction, where prisoners only serve half of the sentence passed up to a certain tarrif. It allows Government to retain the illusion they are taking a hard line on crime whilst reducing costs but it pishes all over the victims and their families.

Cheers. I had never heard of a case being allowed to lie on file before and it was confusing the hell out of me as to what it was about.

And Bish, all I was doing was connecting three disparate things in my own head, I wouldn't worry about unravelling it, as I was completely confused myself as to what was going on. Bijou Bob has kind of cleared up some of my confusion for me. I had the wrong end of the stick - I thought the authorities were allowing some crimes to disappear into some kind of black hole: apparently not!

As I understand it Hall was charged with rape on the evidence of a victim. If it came to trial she was prepared to testify and, if found guilty, his sentence would have been far more severe. When he agreed to plead guilty to the other charges, the victim was no longer willing to testify so the prosecution could not proceed. However, the matter is not dropped - it lies in the record and could conceivably be introduced at a later date. Something of a sword of Damocles for Hall. It is possibly the guilty plea came up to avoid the prosecution for rape.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Cases are allowed to lie on file usually because dragging the case through court either wouldn't be in the public interest or would be too traumatic for the victim. In this case, I suspect the evidence was weak and largely circumstantial but backed up by allegations of a similar nature. The case could be brought before a court if he appealed sentence for example or if he commits a similar offence.

The Hall case has pointed out once again the ludicrous nature of sentencing and sentence reduction, where prisoners only serve half of the sentence passed up to a certain tarrif. It allows Government to retain the illusion they are taking a hard line on crime whilst reducing costs but it pishes all over the victims and their families.

Cheers. I had never heard of a case being allowed to lie on file before and it was confusing the hell out of me as to what it was about.

And Bish, all I was doing was connecting three disparate things in my own head, I wouldn't worry about unravelling it, as I was completely confused myself as to what was going on. Bijou Bob has kind of cleared up some of my confusion for me. I had the wrong end of the stick - I thought the authorities were allowing some crimes to disappear into some kind of black hole: apparently not!

As I understand it Hall was charged with rape on the evidence of a victim. If it came to trial she was prepared to testify and, if found guilty, his sentence would have been far more severe. When he agreed to plead guilty to the other charges, the victim was no longer willing to testify so the prosecution could not proceed. However, the matter is not dropped - it lies in the record and could conceivably be introduced at a later date. Something of a sword of Damocles for Hall. It is possibly the guilty plea came up to avoid the prosecution for rape.

Right. We are getting to the bottom of my confusion.
So Hall was charged with 14 counts of which he admitted 13 and denied 1.
So he then had a trial and was sentenced. But the one charge he denied he hasn't been tried for, but the state is assuming guilt on that count. Hence my query about a fair trial. It would appear the authorities are doing exactly what the law says we shouldn't do and assuming somebody is guilty until proved innocent, yes? (ignoring the obviousness of him being guilty in the first place and having been sentenced). It is all very confusing.

[Bijou Bob]

No Spotty, the state haven't assumed he is guilty. The additional offence with which he was charged but which did not go to trial will be held in obeyance. Having not been to trial, he is assumed not guilty of this one issue.

The legal system in this country works in a linear fashion: Investigation - Charge the defendant if there is sufficient evidence to assume a reasonable prospect of success at trial and it is in the public interest - Trial at court. This process was followed in 13 cases but in the case of one offence, the charge was laid before the court but did not go to trial. It is therefore said to be 'Laying on file' as the charge paperwork (statements etc) will stay with the evidence from the other cases unless used at a future date.

I hope that clarifies it??

[bobo the clown]

No Spotty, the state haven't assumed he is guilty. The additional offence with which he was charged but which did not go to trial will be held in obeyance. Having not been to trial, he is assumed not guilty of this one issue.

... but, as it wasn't tried, COULD be re-opened if more evidence came to light ?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ok. I'm clarified. Like butter.

[thebish]

i need to go and check what sentences people got for nicking bottles of water during the London riots a couple of years ago....

ah yes.... it seems Hall's sentence is somewhere in between the severity of nicking a case of bottled water and nicking a box of doughnuts.....

A college student with no criminal record was jailed for six months for stealing a £3.50 case of bottled water during a night of rioting. Nicolas Robinson, 23, of Borough, south-east London, carried out the “opportunistic” theft at a Lidl supermarket in Brixton as he walked home from his girlfriend’s house. Robinson threw away the water and ran when he was confronted by police but was arrested and quickly admitted what he had done.

Thomas Downey, 48, a serial offender who went to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous before downing a bottle of sherry couldn’t help himself to a box of doughnuts when 20 riot officers arrived. Downey’s lawyer justified that her client had left prison with only £4 in his pocket and was very hungry and therefore help himself to the doughnuts but that wasn’t enough to impress the judge. Downey was slapped with 16 months of jail.

Conrad McGrath, 21, from Stockport, who is studying English at Aberystwyth university was jailed for 16 months for taking alcohol from Tesco Express on Oxford Street.

David Swarbrick, 25, was jailed for two years after he stole £25 worth of Oil of Olay from a Quality Save store in Parker Street, which was unsecured after an earlier riot attack.

Anthony Winder, 38, father-of-four, looted the Swarovski Crystal store and smashed a display cabinet to get an ornamental dog and for that he was sentenced to 2 years of jail

Coach driver David Beswick was jailed for 18 months for accepting £20 from a looter to “look after” a 37-inch flat-screen TV in the boot of his car. It had been stolen from the Cash Generator shop in Salford, Manchester.

Ursula Nevin, 24, who slept through the riots in Manchester, was jailed for five months because she accepted a pair of shorts looted by her flatmate Gemma Corbet.

[bobo the clown]

You do ignore the nature of riots and these crimes were treated in that context however there my dog-collared friend.

[thebish]

You do ignore the nature of riots and these crimes were treated in that context however there my dog-collared friend.

oh indeed...

but even in the context of riots - do Hall's crimes (bearing in mind the nature of sexual abuse) REALLY rank below stealing a box of doughnuts or for the purposes of sentencing???

you may think so - I couldn't possibly comment my big-shoed friend...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Sentencing in this country is a fxcking joke.
From experience I can tell you that after a night spent in Cheapside in Liverpool 38 years ago I was surprised to find at the next morning's stipendary magistrates court that I was the only one of my fellow 'criminals' to be remanded into the care of Risley Remand centre. My crime, having confronted the barbarians dressed in a police uniform who had dragged my female friend to the floor by the hair after she had drunkenly wandered in front of a patrolling police la driver. After a week on remand I finally got fined £200 with costs for drunk and disorderly and threatening a police officer and refusing to recognise the court. My lady friend was released without charge. Nut cell mate was also released without charge after carving somebody's face open, as they refused to press charges. The other cell mate was fined £25 for discharging a weapon in a public place. I later found out he had walked into the She club and shot at the bar staff with a double barrelled sawn off because he wad a member of a rival gang who had been thrown out by the bouncers earlier that night. I also found out that he went 'missing' and was found under a pile of bricks behind the Roscoe three months later. So I'm not impressed by comparisons of what feckin magistrates give out in the way of justice in this poxy society.
PS. I'm a good boy now. Not been arrested for anything in over thirty years. But then again I've not rioted in the meantime either.

[Bijou Bob]

The law can indeed be an ass. I'm still far from convinced that the system doesn't run as badly and as awkwardly as it does on purpose, to line the pockets of the briefs with their snouts in the legal aid trough.

And yes, Bobo, the case can be brought back to court and used as evidence if Hall ever commits a similar offence, or if further evidence that would lead to a stronger chance of conviction comes to light.

[bobo the clown]

You do ignore the nature of riots and these crimes were treated in that context however there my dog-collared friend.

oh indeed...

but even in the context of riots - do Hall's crimes (bearing in mind the nature of sexual abuse) REALLY rank below stealing a box of doughnuts or for the purposes of sentencing???

you may think so - I couldn't possibly comment my big-shoed friend...

Not in the least ... but exampling "stealing a box of doughnuts" without the context of "whilst a riot was occurring" is a bit selective.

[thebish]

Sentencing in this country is a fxcking joke.
From experience I can tell you that after a night spent in Cheapside in Liverpool 38 years ago I was surprised to find at the next morning's stipendary magistrates court that I was the only one of my fellow 'criminals' to be remanded into the care of Risley Remand centre. My crime, having confronted the barbarians dressed in a police uniform who had dragged my female friend to the floor by the hair after she had drunkenly wandered in front of a patrolling police la driver. After a week on remand I finally got fined £200 with costs for drunk and disorderly and threatening a police officer and refusing to recognise the court.

go on - admit it - you also pooed in a police officer's hat, didn't you....

[thebish]

You do ignore the nature of riots and these crimes were treated in that context however there my dog-collared friend.

oh indeed...

but even in the context of riots - do Hall's crimes (bearing in mind the nature of sexual abuse) REALLY rank below stealing a box of doughnuts or for the purposes of sentencing???

you may think so - I couldn't possibly comment my big-shoed friend...

Not in the least ... but exampling "stealing a box of doughnuts" without the context of "whilst a riot was occurring" is a bit selective.

well - apart from my introductory phrase "during the London riots"!

[bobo the clown]

You do ignore the nature of riots and these crimes were treated in that context however there my dog-collared friend.

oh indeed...

but even in the context of riots - do Hall's crimes (bearing in mind the nature of sexual abuse) REALLY rank below stealing a box of doughnuts or for the purposes of sentencing???

you may think so - I couldn't possibly comment my big-shoed friend...

Not in the least ... but exampling "stealing a box of doughnuts" without the context of "whilst a riot was occurring" is a bit selective.

well - apart from my introductory phrase "during the London riots"!

... but you were using the sentences as the comparator.

Anyroadup ... I thought 15 months for what is the tip of the iceberg by a sexual predator of girls as young as 9 is a poor show ... and I don't care if he is 83.

[thebish]

You do ignore the nature of riots and these crimes were treated in that context however there my dog-collared friend.

oh indeed...

but even in the context of riots - do Hall's crimes (bearing in mind the nature of sexual abuse) REALLY rank below stealing a box of doughnuts or for the purposes of sentencing???

you may think so - I couldn't possibly comment my big-shoed friend...

Not in the least ... but exampling "stealing a box of doughnuts" without the context of "whilst a riot was occurring" is a bit selective.

well - apart from my introductory phrase "during the London riots"!

... but you were using the sentences as the comparator.

and you were claiming that I hadn't set the context!!

[Bijou Bob]

So, have consensual sex and a French holiday with a 15 year old and you get five years and six months porridge. Sexually assault 13 victims, some as young as nine and you get 15 months. Is it just me or is something amiss here??