In previous posts I have explained how the ULS scheme works in the UK, and how any member of the public can appeal against sentences that appear "unduly lenient", providing the conditions are met (sentence was passed down in a Crown Court, and within 28 days of sentencing). In my previous posts I have indicated the e-mail addresses for England and Scotland, as I understood at the time.
However it appears that Scotland does not have the same sort of scheme as England.
In January, there was a story of a paedophile, in Scotland, who molested a nine year old girl in her bed with her six year old brother in a bed next to her. His "punishment" (if that is what it can be called) was 200 hours Community Service over a period of nine months.
The old cliché "couldn't make it up" comes to mind.
So, this was a case that I appealed against, in the usual way. I have to admit, I have not appealed against many Scottish cases, most of the ones I have done are for English cases.
Yesterday I found out, by return e-mail, that for sentences passed down in Scotland the public cannot make a "ULS" appeal (the first time that I have been told of this - normally the e-mails I receive back are acknowledgements and I don't hear anything else).
It seems that the only people that can appeal, are the offenders (if they consider the sentence to be too severe), and the COPFS (Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service) if they consider sentences to be too lenient.
"Thank you for your email dated 10 January 2015 regarding a sentence that was imposed on an offender for child abuse. Your email has been passed to the Criminal Law and Licensing Division and I have been asked to reply.
I wish to reassure you that the Scottish Government deplores sexual and physical abuse. These deplorable crimes, which can have a devastating effect on victims and their families, are unacceptable and will not be tolerated and our communities must be protected from sex offenders. We are working with all relevant agencies to ensure that children, young people and adults are given the best possible protection from harm.
I have noted your comments regarding the sentence that was imposed. I must advise you that the Scottish Ministers cannot offer a view on sentences imposed in individual cases. The independence of the judiciary is an essential pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial in any modern civilised country. That is why section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 provides that Scottish Ministers must not seek to influence judicial decisions. Therefore, you will understand why the Scottish Government will not offer a specific view on any individual sentencing decision made by our courts.
It is the case that judges are best placed to decide on an appropriate sentence for each offender before them as they hear all the facts and circumstances of a case before they then make their sentencing decisions within the overall legal framework provided by Parliament. If the judge considers an offence, based on all the facts of the particular case, merits a tough and lengthy custodial sentence, then this Government fully supports that.
In relation to your request that an appeal be lodged against the sentence, it may be helpful if I explain more about appeals process within the justice system in Scotland. Anyone who is convicted of a crime in Scotland can appeal against the sentence if they consider it is too severe. Equally, the independent Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can appeal against a sentence if they feel it is unduly lenient. Crown Counsel will give careful consideration as to whether a sentence was unduly lenient or if the sentence imposed is within the range available to the judge in the exercise of their normal judicial discretion. The decision to appeal against a sentence is a decision for the independent COPFS to make and, as with judicial decisions, the Scottish Government cannot intervene in such decisions. Where COPFS appeal against a sentence as being unduly lenient, it is for the court to decide whether the appeal is successful.".
So, if there are any "couldn't make this shit up" decisions in Scotland, not much us the plebs can do. Shame, there have been many successful appeals in England, why don't the Scottish Government have a similar scheme.
Showing posts with label unduly lenient. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unduly lenient. Show all posts
Saturday, 14 February 2015
Saturday, 31 May 2014
Adam Hulin, Undue Leniency & No Justice.
Adam Hulin
"A TEENAGER plied a 12-year-old girl with vodka so he could sexually assault her on the back seat of his car, a court heard. Adam Hulin, of Hurst Lane, Headley, appeared for trial at Guildford Crown Court this week, accused of raping the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in December 2012. The 19-year-old admitted driving the alleged victim to several locations in Bookham and performing sex acts with her, but denied having sexual intercourse and said he believed her to be aged 16. Opening the case for the prosecution on Monday, Alan Gardner said: "In the middle of 2012, Hulin added the girl as a friend on social media site Facebook. "During conversations they had on Facebook, he asked what school year she was in and, after answering she was in Year 7, his response was 'cute'. It is the prosecution's case that Hulin was well aware of her age."
"A MAN has been sentenced to a community order for performing sexual acts with a 12-year-old girl.
Adam Hulin of Hurst Lane, Headley, avoided prison despite admitting charges of oral rape of a child under 13 and assault of a child under 13 by penetration. In addition to the 12-month community order handed down at Guildford Crown Court on Wednesday (April 23), the 19-year-old was ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work and attend six sessions on his attitude towards sexual encounters. A custodial term is within the sentencing council's guidelines for the offences he committed."
"He was found neither guilty or not guilty of this charge, after the jury was discharged and the judge heard evidence alone in what is known as a Newton hearing. During this hearing the judge accepted Hulin’s defence that at the time of the encounter he believed the girl was 16. It was decided the rape charge would remain on file. Mitigating at the sentencing hearing, Richard McConaghy said Hulin had engaged in what he had believed was “what most people would ordinarily define as regular sexual activity”. He added: “This incident took place in December 2012 and the complainant in this matter turned 13 in February 2013. If this incident had taken place three months later then, because of the matter for which Mr Hulin is now being sentenced, he would have had a complete defence of law. “It is simply to do with the fact that she was a couple of months shy of her 13th birthday that Mr Hulin finds himself subject to the law at all.”
"Convicted oral child rapist Adam Hulin will not take part in any sex offenders’ treatment programme it has emerged - even though sentencing guidelines say this should happen when a judge decides not to impose a jail term. Hulin, 19, of Hookwood Cottages, in Hurst Lane, Headley, was given 100 hours of community service, a £60 victim surcharge and the requirement to attend six community reintegration sessions after pleading guilty to oral rape and sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl in Bookham in December 2012. The talented runner was only put on the Sex Offenders' Register for five years after he was sentenced by the judge Recorder George Lawson-Rogers QC at Guildford Crown Court last month. Last week, the Solicitor General Oliver Heald QC MP decided that the sentence handed to Hulin would not be reviewed - despite calls from the victim’s family and others who believed it was unduly lenient."
You seriously couldn't make this up.
Knew she was about 12 by the fact he asked her what year she was in (year 7 = first year at secondary school). Yet somehow the judge was seemingly duped into believing that he believed she was 16! How does that work? There is more than a little difference between a 12 year old child & a 16 year old teenager - surely no-one could ever fall for that? Maybe a 14 or 15 year old, but a 12 year old?
And what of the comments made by Barrister Richard McConaghy?
"This incident took place in December 2012 and the complainant in this matter turned 13 in February 2013. If this incident had taken place three months later then, because of the matter for which Mr Hulin is now being sentenced, he would have had a complete defence of law. “It is simply to do with the fact that she was a couple of months shy of her 13th birthday that Mr Hulin finds himself subject to the law at all.”
Am I missing something blindingly obvious here, or am I being incredibly stupid in assuming that by Law, the age of consent in the UK is 16, not 13? Children of 12 / 13 cannot consent. New guidelines published this year, as explained here include the following excert:
"The guideline makes it clear that victims are not responsible for what has happened to them. This is particularly emphasised in relation to offences committed against children. In the previous guideline there were child sex offences labelled as involving ‘ostensible consent’ – that is, where a child over 13 has apparently agreed to sexual activity. The Council believes that this is the wrong way of looking at these offences as children do not consent to their own abuse. The new guideline therefore looks more at the offender’s actions and behaviour towards the victim" So again, what is this Barrister going on about?
Unfortunately, appeals to the AG as Unduly lenient (yes I did appeal this case) where the AG decides not to review, cannot be re-appealed. It seems then, that for this "talented athlete" (not that this has anything to do with these offences), for sexually assaulting and orally raping a 12 year old child after plying her with vodka, a sentence of 100 hours community service, a £60 victim surcharge and 6 community reintegration sessions (which are NOT designed for sexual offences) is an appropriate sentence! Believe it or not. British Justice at its best again.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
Judge Bowers - Conclusion.
Readers may recall the above posting from last year regarding Judge Peter Bowers and his comments during the case of sex offender Gary Flynn, who walked free from court in October 2013 after he admitted indecently assaulting and forcing a young girl into oral sex over 15 years ago.
To recall, this is from the article in the Northern Echo at the time -
"Yesterday (Friday October 18), Judge Bowers attracted further criticism when he handed 35-year-old Gary Flynn a community order after he admitted indecently assaulting a young girl more than 15 years ago.
Flynn, of Belle Vue Court, Norton, near Stockton, admitted touching the younger girl’s genitals and forcing her to have oral sex when he was aged between 16 and 18.
Judge Bowers praised Flynn – previously cautioned for a similar offence - for pleading guilty and sparing his victim the ordeal of giving evidence before handing him a three year community supervision order.
He told him: “You were a teenager suffering from the effects of a head injury which made your maturity and responsibility less than somebody of your age.
“This is water under the bridge. You have lived 15 or 17 years without other convictions and there is no reason to think you will be committing offences in the future.”"
As well as appealing this sentence as "Unduly Lenient" (which as readers will know is something that anyone can do - if not please click on the link & find out how), I also registered a complaint about the language used.
Describing sexual abuse, "historic" or current, as "water under the bridge" is simply not acceptable, and is a prime example of why victims can be reluctant to come forward. Was Judge Bowers implying that as the sexual abuse was "Historic" it was less important & it didn't matter as much?
Anyway, I have two updates on this, as below.
Firstly the "unduly lenient" appeal
"After careful consideration the Solicitor General decided not to refer the sentence imposed on Gary Flynn to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. The sentencing judge took account of the fact that the offender was sixteen when he committed the offence and that his maturity had been affected by a head injury. He had not offended in the intervening years and he pleaded guilty, so the victim did not have to give evidence. The judge explained that he was imposing a sentence which would enable the offender to engage in sex offender treatment. The Solicitor General concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range, bearing in mind the relevant sentencing guidelines"
Not sure I really agree with this, but the decision is final following an appeal, so not a lot can be done.
Secondly the language used by Judge Bowers. I received a response from JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office), which indicates the following -
The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice considered my complaint, and have concluded no disciplinary action was necessary. However, they were both concerned about the impact of the comments made during the sentencing of Mr Flynn and consider that all judges must be very mindful of how they express themselves when dealing with sensitive issues. Judge Bowers received informal advice on the matter.
As I said in This posting, If you have any complaints against the conduct of the judiciary, including language like this, you also can complain to The Judicial Conduct's Office by letter or e-mail - and you don't have to be directly involved in the individual cases.
Anyone can make a difference. You included.
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Male vs Female Paedophiles Round 2
"A mother of one has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than 50 times.
Loren Morris, 21, slept with the boy for about two years starting when she was 16, a court heard.
She was charged after the boy, now 14, was overheard bragging to classmates he had slept with her.
Antoine Mullers, defending, said Morris, of Lyde, Herefordshire, stopped having sex with him when she realised it was ‘wrong’.
Judge Robert Juckes QC added: ‘I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences.’
She was seen smiling and smoking at Worcester crown court yesterday where she was jailed for two years after being convicted of three counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 16.
Morris was also banned from contact with a child under 16 without the permission of a parent and put on the sex offenders’ register for ten years"
Following my post last year here AVP - Male vs Female Paedophiles, and ignoring the disgusting language used in this case (how the hell can anyone "have sex with" an eight year old?), here is a classic example of the way that female paedophiles are treated differently to male ones.
Imagine a male paedophile, sexually abusing or raping an eight year old more than FIFTY times, and getting a mere TWO YEARS custodial sentence. Chances are, the sentence would be nearer to one in double figures. Chances are, that if he did get a mere TWO YEARS there would be plenty of complaints to the AG's office, and the sentence would be dramatically increased.
But a female paedophile? How are complaints dealt with for a sentence of TWO YEARS for the sexual assault (equivalent of RAPE) of an EIGHT year old MORE THAN FIFTY TIMES?
I'll show you -
"Thank you for your email below regarding the sentence passed on Loren Morris.
The Law Officers, (the Attorney and Solicitor General) have the power to refer sentences for a limited number of offences to the Court of Appeal when they consider the sentence to be unduly lenient. This means more than lenient. A sentence will only be unduly lenient if it falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have imposed in the circumstances of the particular case. Even then, the Court of Appeal has a wide discretion as to whether it should actually increase a sentence in a case.
Following a very careful review of this case the Solicitor General, Oliver Heald QC MP has decided not to refer the sentence of Loren Morris to the Court of Appeal, as he did not believe that the sentence for the offences would be increased"
As I said at the beginning, another classic example of how female paedophiles are treated far more leniently than male ones.
Disgusting - why is there such a difference - the offense is exactly the same. Same type of offender, same type of offence, same end result regarding there being a victim of child sexual abuse. Someone really needs to look & find out why there is such a sentence differential. The judicial outcome should be exactly the same - male / female / young / old.
Saturday, 18 January 2014
One Two Three Four - How many times can a Predatory Paedophile be let off?
January 2014
"A predatory paedophile who has repeatedly abused teenage boys and girls he targeted on social network sites was given one last chance today to avoid going to prison.
Callum Evans, 21, was already on a three-year community order for grooming and abusing two 14-year-old boys when he pursued more teenagers after being spared prison in September 2011 having admitted a string of sex charges.
Judge Graham Hume Jones also gave Evans a Sexual Offences Prevention Order which banned him from contacting children online.
But within a few weeks he had breached that order by using a computer and mobile phone to contact teenagers.
He got them to send him indecent images before meeting up with them and carrying out sex attacks, Bristol Crown Court heard"
July 2013
"Judge Graham Hume Jones said banning Callum Evans from using Facebook would be “particularly excessive” after he was caught two years ago using it to groom two teenage boys and meet up with them to molest them.
Despite being found using Facebook again to try and trick 13 boys and one girl to send him pornographic photos, the 21-year-old appeared before the same judge, who allowed him to remain on the site for a second time.
Judge Hume Jones has previously been criticised for his sentencing, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) referred one of his cases to the Attorney General for 'undue leniency.’
Taunton Crown Court heard that in 2011 Judge Hume Jones gave Evans a community order but didn’t ban him from using Facebook after he was caught using the site to encourage boys to send naked photos, as he said this would deprive him of the 'social traffic’ his peers took for granted.
Weeks after being convicted, Evans created a new alias on Facebook, which he used to pose as a teenage girl to convince other teenagers to send him pornographic photos of themselves.
September 2011
"A teenager who used Facebook to groom young boys, some of whom he later molested, can continue to use social networking sites, a judge ruled yesterday.
Callum Dower, 19, used the site to encourage youths to send him naked pictures. If they rejected his advances, he would pose as a girl and try again.
He went on to molest one boy in a supermarket toilet, and another in his car after allowing him to drive it in a car park.
Judge Graham Hume Jones sentenced the ‘extremely manipulative’ Dower to a three-year community order for child sex and pornography offences.
However, he agreed with defence barrister Patrick Mason’s claim that a ban from using social networking websites would be ‘particularly excessive’, and deprive the defendant of the ‘social traffic’ taken for granted by his peers.
Dower had admitted six charges of making an indecent image of a child, five charges of causing or inciting a child to take part in pornography and two charges of sexual activity with a child. Taunton Crown Court also heard that he had previously been warned by police about his affection for teenage boys.
Dower was aged 17 and 18 when he carried out the offences. He used Facebook to contact boys as young as 14, and urged them to send him lewd images with their mobile phones. If they refused, he posed as ‘Georgina’, ‘Georgia’, ‘Georgie’ and ‘Jade’, and attempted to trade explicit images."
2009
Could not find any news stories, but according to the articles "The court heard how Evans, described as being from a good middle class family, was first convicted of possessing indecent images in 2009"
One has to wonder if the judge then was also Judge Hume Jones?
One also has to wonder how on earth decisions like this have been made?
How many times does a "predatory paedophile" have to offend - in the same way - before proper justice is done?
Why the change of name from Dower to Evans?
If there was ever a warning and a reason not to let young children use social media sites alone without any parental supervision, this is it!
Obviously I have appealed this to the AG, and the AG's Office has "asked for further details of the case from the Crown Prosecution Service so that the Law Officers can decide whether or not to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient"
Updates as I get them.
Thursday, 5 December 2013
Paedophile teacher has sentence more than doubled. "Unduly Lenient" Works Again.
"A PAEDOPHILE teacher who preyed on his own pupils has had his jail term more than doubled after his original sentence was judged to have been “unduly lenient”.
Richard Oldham, 32, was jailed for just six months in September when he admitted a catalogue of offences while teaching in York - including sexual assaults against two 10-year-old boys, voyeurism and making and possessing indecent images of children."If you too would like to get involved the next time you see a sentence that is completely unreflective of the crime, please read my posting from earlier this year - How to appeal against Unduly Lenient Sentences.
It works.
Yours could be the appeal that increases an unduly lenient sentence. Go for it.
Sent 19 September 2013
"Dear Sir,
I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Richard Oldham, Leeds Crown Court as being unduly lenient, the reasons being as below:
"The punishment of offenders
This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine." This was a paedophile teacher who has committed a variety of offences against children for eight years across primary schools, including making IIOC up to level four (I realise I cannot appeal against this), touching children and voyeurism. Receiving a six month sentence for eight years of sexual offences is merely a slap on the wrist, and send out a message that this crime is not taken seriously, and in no way does it show society's unhappiness.
the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence). As per the above reasons, a six month sentence is no deterrent whatsoever for his behaviour. If anything, the fact that he was a teacher and had responsibility for primary school children on a daily basis, should demand a slightly longer sentence than a paedophile who was not in his position of responsibility.
"the protection of the public
This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." The fact that he has committed various crimes over a period of eight years, must mean that there is a strong possibility (or probability) that he is very likely to offend again. Locking him up for six months, minus parole / good behaviour, is no protection to the public, especially with the contact he has had with children.
I have already contacted the CPS regarding Judge Jameson's anti-victim comments regarding Richard Oldham being such a good teacher and a loss to the community - I hope that there is some way that they will be able to address this as this language is unacceptable."
Sunday, 20 October 2013
AVP and Judge Peter Bowers. Again. And Again.
"A MAN who sexually abused a child walked free from court after a controversial judge told him his historic offence was “water under the bridge”.
Judge Peter Bowers was at the centre of a media storm in 2012 after telling a serial burglar it took a huge amount of courage to steal from homes. Following complaints, his comments were investigated by the judicial watchdog, with Prime Minister David Cameron publicly criticising the remarks. Yesterday (Friday October 18), Judge Bowers attracted further criticism when he handed 35-year-old Gary Flynn a community order after he admitted indecently assaulting a young girl more than 15 years ago.
Flynn, of Belle Vue Court, Norton, near Stockton, admitted touching the younger girl’s genitals and forcing her to have oral sex when he was aged between 16 and 18.
Judge Bowers praised Flynn – previously cautioned for a similar offence - for pleading guilty and sparing his victim the ordeal of giving evidence before handing him a three year community supervision order. He told him: “You were a teenager suffering from the effects of a head injury which made your maturity and responsibility less than somebody of your age.
“This is water under the bridge. You have lived 15 or 17 years without other convictions and there is no reason to think you will be committing offences in the future.”
Sorry?
Is this for real?
"Water under the bridge"
Does this victim see this as just Water under the bridge?
Google this phrase & see what the top meaning is.
"water under the bridge (<lg>or <ge>N. Amer.</ge></lg> water over the dam)
phrase of water
- 1.used to refer to events that are in the past and consequently no longer to be regarded as important."I don't want to talk about that—it's all water under the bridge now"
"All in the past and no longer to be regarded as important"
"Judge Bowers praised Flynn – previously cautioned for a similar offence - for pleading guilty"
With attitudes like this, is it any wonder that adult (and child) victims of child abuse don't find it easy to come forward and disclose. With attitudes like this, no wonder the Saville culture flourishes even up until this day. With attitudes like this, no wonder people have no faith whatsoever in the justice system. This sort of AVP language has no place in the judicial process, and should NOT be tolerated.
So, let's have a closer look at Judge Bowers, as it seems this isn't the first time he has caused "controversy"
( in this case Judge Peter Bowers actually said (believe it or not) 'I have read with some concern about you, and this addiction you have had of looking at pornography of little children.") so as well as letting him off, he thinks (or describes) IIOC as "pornography of little children!!!!
So, readers of this blog posting have two things to do instead of moaning about this :)
One - Unduly Lenient - e-mail correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk and appeal this as Unduly Lenient. Does it matter if the offenses were committed in the 1990's? Nope, this should have still resulted in a custodial sentence.
Two - make a complaint about the appalling AVP language used by Judge Bowers. E-mail inbox@ojc.gsi.gov.uk (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) and let them know your feelings about "historical" child sex abuse being considered "Water under a bridge". This AVP Culture needs to stop. NOW!!
Monday, 30 September 2013
IIOC vs ULS vs Indictable Offenses - An Open Question
A quick update on my post from a couple of days ago.
Following the above article published yesterday, the below has been sent, with the question asked if the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Police Minister Damian Green would be happy for me to publish their responses here.
awaiting their replies with interest ...
"Dear Mr Grayling, Mr Green,
I read with interest the article in the subject of this e-mail, regarding "Tough justice for those who watch child porn" (not my choice of words, these images or videos are images of children being abused and exploited by paedophiles, not pornography, but that's another issue that I continually take up with the media).
As you can see by the below, I have been trying to find out why some offences are able to be appealed against under the "Unduly Lenient Sentences" scheme, whilst others are not.
I received a reply from the Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit this week, with the gist of their e-mail reply being it all depends on the classification of offences. It seems that only sentences that are considered "indictable only" can be considered under the ULS scheme, and as the crime of making/downloading of Indecent Images of Children is not an "Indictable Only" crime, this is why it cannot be considered when appealed against.
I have blogged a little on this, the link is here http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/09/indecent-images-of-children-unduly.html, please feel free to read this, I have included in there a small part of the e-mail I received.
My question to both of you, is if the British Justice system is to get tougher on crimes, this one in particular, why is it not considered "indictable only"? I would have thought that all paedophile crimes or crimes against children would automatically be classified as this, not as a "Summary" or "Either Way" offence. As more people become aware of the ULS scheme, surely having this crime included as Indictable Only, and letting the public be able to appeal under the ULS scheme if sentences are too light, would eventually affect the sentences that are passed down going forward if enough people complained?
Thank you & look forward to your reply.
Richard Bougeard"
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Unduly Lenient Sentences, Appeals, and Failures That Seem To Make No Sense.
Back in 2010, Matthew Thane was found guilty of molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl, as well as amassing a library of 766 Indecent Images of Children, some being video clips (read the link above).
At the time, the Judge sentenced him to a three year Supervision Order, a Youth Offending Programme and a residency and Sexual Offenses Prevention Order.
Basically he walked out of court, a free man.
Disgusting!
Wish I had known about appealing sentences back then, that is one I definitely would have appealed!
So, fast forward to this year.
From the above article, Daily Mail, 5 July 2013
"A paedophile spared jail for molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl walked free again today despite lying to police about meeting the young sister of a girlfriend.
Matthew Thain, 21, also breached the terms of his suspended sentence by getting in touch with one of his former victims.Thain, of Camberwell, southeast London, escaped jail in 2010 after a judge ruled intensive supervision would protect other children from the teenage paedophile.
But concerns were raised after he started seeing a woman with a 12-year-old sister.
He had also been in touch with another youngster he was banned from contacting.
Thain admitted attempting to pervert the course of justice and two breaches of a sexual offences prevention order.
Judge Peter Rook QC said: 'This is worrying because it is manipulative behaviour when he thought he was in breach of a court order.
'It's covering up and it's quite hard to argue that it doesn't deserve a custodial sentence.'
He added: 'It seems the breaches do fall into the category where a custodial sentence is appropriate because you were clearly deliberately ignoring a court order and there was a real risk.'
But he agreed he could suspend the sentence to allow Thain to take up a position as an apprentice chef.
The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.
Read the last two line again.
He allowed Matthew Thain to walk from court a free man a second time, so that he could work as an apprentice chef
The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.
You couldn't make this shit up!!
Seriously !!
So, I decided to appeal (as I do, with what I consider to be ULS). The AG agreed to recall the papers etc, so I had hoped that this would be fully reviewed and an appropriate sentence given.
But...
"Thank you for your letter dated the 04 July 2013 in which you expressed dismay at the sentence passed upon Matthew Thain for perverting the course of justice and breach of a sexual offences prevention order. As you are aware, in certain circumstances, the Law Officers can apply to the Court of Appeal for sentences to be increased on the grounds that they are “unduly lenient”.
The Law Officers’ power to refer sentences is contained within section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 but it is subject to certain restrictions. The power is only available in respect of sentences imposed for certain offences, which includes perverting the course of justice but not breaching a sexual offences prevention order. However, where an offence which is not referable is linked to one that is referable then both offences can be considered.
The power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for consideration as an unduly lenient sentence is not a prosecution right of appeal. It is a power reserved for the most serious offences in which a sentence falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have passed. Having considered this case very carefully, the Solicitor General decided that it would not be right to refer it to the Court of Appeal as he did not believe they would increase the sentence.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring this case to the Solicitor General’s attention, I hope this explanation has been of some assistance."
Where is common sense when you need it?
Quite obviously, his original Offenders Treatment Programme did not work.
Quite obviously he still poses a risk.
Quite obviously he should have received a custodial sentence (IMHO)
Quite obviously sentences in the British Isles are more than often a complete joke when it is for paedophile crimes.
Quite obviously, there is little or no deterrence, little or no justice, and little or no "justice being seen to have been done".
Quite obviously, sentences need to be realistic and appropriate, and if they are not, they need to be reviewed.
Monday, 5 August 2013
Another Poor Excuse for an Unduly Lenient and AVP Filled Sentence
Nigel Peters - GROOMED
Apologies for the title of this posting, but the excuses given out by paedophiles and accepted by judges are unbelievable. In this article from today, in which 41 year old Neil Wilson basically walked free from court after "having a two week fling" (?? WTF) with a thirteen year old child, his excuse, and that of the prosecution, that was swallowed hook line and sinker by Judge Nigel Peters, was that his victim was " a sexually experienced predator who egged him on to commit one of the crimes he committed"
Seriously??
Are we to believe this to be a plausible excuse for a forty one year old to submit before court??
Apparently so.
Even worse was the judge who believed this, accepted that Neil Wilson knew that she was underage, and despite him also downloading level three images of child abuse, let him off with an eight month sentence suspended for two years! You seriously couldn't make this crap up!
Seriously, the UK needs to start taking this crime with the seriousness it should be taken with. Being groomed into blaming the victim for being a "13 year old sexual predator" is really taking the proverbial!
Consider this scenario:
An eighty year old tries "egging him on" in the same way (perfectly legal of course) - what would he do?
a) take advantage of her,
b) voice his concerns to Social Services or similar, or
c) ignore & do a fast one?
One would almost guarantee that answer c) would be the majority decision, with some people who have a conscience choosing option b)
What is the difference then?
If an adult male has a thirteen year old girl "trying it on with him", I would hope that the majority would at least raise this with someone like Social Services.
This is no excuse, and should not be bought by the #AVP groomed judges of the UK.
E-mail to AG today.
"I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Neil Wilson, Snaresbrook Crown Court today as being unduly lenient, the reasons being as below: "The punishment of offenders This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine." As I have pointed out several times in previous appeals, crimes involving sexually abusing / rape against children should always be dealt with in a custodial manner. Society does not view offenders walking out of court as an adequate punishment for paedophiles, who by their nature will always pose a risk to children. the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence). Giving paedophiles suspended sentences is absolutely no deterrence, especially as this was not the only offence committed (also the counts of Indecent Images of Children, level three, which should have resulted in a custodial sentence in itself, being level three). Saying that the victim was a "sexual predator" is an appalling thing for a judge to say, and absolutely no relevance to this case - he obviously knew that she was underage, and he still took advantage of a child. If an eighty year old was to "egg him on" in the same way, would he do the same thing and enter into a sexual relation with her? Of course not, so why would he and the prosecution use this poor excuse - this was a paedophile that saw an opportunity, and took full advantage "the protection of the public This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." Someone who was downloading these sort of images, and someone who was prepared to commit the crime he has committed will pose a threat to other girls of a similar age. Letting him walk free from the courtroom is not protecting the public in any way - in plain words, he was a 41 year old who sexually abused a thirteen year, and he should be imprisoned for the protection of children in his area of the UK."
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence). Giving paedophiles suspended sentences is absolutely no deterrence, especially as this was not the only offence committed (also the counts of Indecent Images of Children, level three, which should have resulted in a custodial sentence in itself, being level three). Saying that the victim was a "sexual predator" is an appalling thing for a judge to say, and absolutely no relevance to this case - he obviously knew that she was underage, and he still took advantage of a child. If an eighty year old was to "egg him on" in the same way, would he do the same thing and enter into a sexual relation with her? Of course not, so why would he and the prosecution use this poor excuse - this was a paedophile that saw an opportunity, and took full advantage "the protection of the public This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." Someone who was downloading these sort of images, and someone who was prepared to commit the crime he has committed will pose a threat to other girls of a similar age. Letting him walk free from the courtroom is not protecting the public in any way - in plain words, he was a 41 year old who sexually abused a thirteen year, and he should be imprisoned for the protection of children in his area of the UK."
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Unduly Lenient sentences in the UK
I was going to continue with my "Media AVP" posts, but following the above story thought I would do a small posting regarding 'unduly lenient sentences' in the UK.
How many of you read the above story with a feeling of disgust - that someone who was found guilty of sex offences against young children could walk out of court a free man (albeit with a 12 month suspended sentence?)
What was the judge thinking? How can this be allowed? What a smack in the face for his victims who have had to a) live with this all these past years and b) have had to live through the ordeal of a full trial due to him pleading not guilty?
A lot of people judging by the comments on twitter and other sites.
How many of you realise that there is a way that you can appeal against sentences that are 'unduly lenient' like this one certainly is?
Anyone can appeal against a sentence that you consider Unduly Lenient!
As long as the sentencing is in the previous twenty-eight days, was passed in a Crown Court, and is a crime contained in the link I will include at the bottom of this posting - anyone can appeal to the AGs office against the sentence.
If you do appeal, all you need to do is make sure your e-mail is short, sharp and to the point (bullet-pointed is helpful). I personally find it beneficial to include the offenders name, date of sentence and court the trial and sentence was passed in the subject field. There are probably numerous sites you can refer to regarding sentencing policies and what conditions have not been met which have made it (in your view) 'unduly lenient', but the one I use is What Sentences Are For.
This link Unduly Lenient Sentences gives further details on how the process works. For England and Wales, the e-mail address to send them to is correspondenceunit@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk and for Scotland, the e-mail address is correspondenceunit@scotland.gsi.gov.uk.
A lot of the time, sentences will not be reviewed, but there are times they will be, as below.
Thank you for your email below about the sentence given to Graham Ovenden.
This Office has asked for further details of the cases from the Crown Prosecution Service so that the Law Officers can decide whether or not to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient.
Yours sincerely
Correspondence Unit
So next time, instead of joining the twitter/facebook army of moaners, do something constructive about it.
You never know, yours could be the one appeal that gets a sentence increased to what it should be..............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)