15 months for Stuart Hall, pleaded guilty to 13 assualts

[tibbsey]

I barely know who he is. When you look at the sentencing guidelines, his mitigations and the fact that they happened a long, long time ago, the sentence isn't crazy. Yes it could be a bit longer, but we're talking adding months, not years.

Why does the fact that it happened a long time ago have any bearing on the punishment someone should receive?

 

[Buckeyed]

Why does the fact that it happened a long time ago have any bearing on the punishment someone should receive?

Potentially one could argue that he has had time to reform himself and that giving the full tariff now compared to at the time would not be suitable.

I noticed that the reason for the short sentence is due to serving the sentences concurrently rather than one after another.

Ultimately I think that as he poses no further threat to anybody 15 months is not a ridiculous sentence (I do agree he should serve the whole sentence), although I would have no sympathy if it was longer.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Burnsy mate that has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read on here. I have no doubt you wouldn't be saying that if one of the victims was to be any of your kids!

So you're saying that I should get emotionally involved to be able to objectively judge the situation?

Why does the fact that it happened a long time ago have any bearing on the punishment someone should receive?

It's not so much that they were committed a long time ago, but more that the defendant actively chose to stop his pattern of offending a long time ago.

I have considered the contents of the pre‐sentence report with care. To the Probation officer you indicated that in 1986 you took the decision to stop your criminal behaviour towards others and stopped drinking spirits and chose to be celibate. There is no evidence before the Court of any offending since 1986 and I sentence you on that basis. This counters some of the adverse assessments in the pre‐sentence report. I consider that some of the negative attitudes referred to in the report are more an indication that having taken the decision to change your ways you thought and hoped that you had put it all behind you and have found the fact that these matters have come to light difficult to come to terms with.

When you consider that custodial sentences are for three reasons: to punish (and therefore act as a deterrent), to protect the public and to rehabilitate; the latter two aren't really a risk. He's not offended in 25 years and effectively made efforts to rehabilitate himself. So that leaves just punishment, and so 15 months isn't wildly off the mark. Perhaps I would have taken a bit harder line and suggested 2 years, but it's still only 9 months more than what the judge ordered.

 

[Freakbro]

Why does the fact that it happened a long time ago have any bearing on the punishment someone should receive?

Because if you read the information posted, in law

1) The offence of which the defendant is convicted and the sentencing parameters (in particular, the maximum available sentence) applicable to that offence are governed not by the law at the date of sentence, but by the law in force at the time when the criminal conduct occurred.

The maximum sentence for this type of crime now is 10 years, but back when most of the offences were committed the maximum sentence was 2 years, with some of them at 5 years.

So I guess depending on the severity of which crimes at which timeframe, is how they arrived at the figure of 15 months and I guess they wouldn't have gone with maximum sentences anyway.

 

[Craterloads]

It must be part his culture sexually abusing 9 yr old kids, the English community must do more to tackle this culture.

 

[The Running Man]

Okay, who can we vote for to stop concurrent sentences?

The sentence of the Court is as follows:For Count 1 - 6 months imprisonment
For Counts 2-4 - 3 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Count 6 - 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Counts 10 and 11 – 6 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Counts 12, 13 and 14 – 9 months imprisonment on each count concurrentFor Count 15 – 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 16 – 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 17 – 6 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 18 - 9 months imprisonment concurrent
All sentences to be concurrent amounting to 15 months in all.

- See more at: http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=33371#sthash.3IR18rtQ.dpuf

Effectively the joke that is concurrent sentencing means you can commit a huge number of crimes and instead of stacking the punishment up, you can serve them all at the same time. If we operated a system like the US, he'd be looking at about 6-7 years.

Oh, and as for good behaviour, it shouldn't half your sentence, but ANY bad behaviour should double it.

Less carrot, more stick pls.

 

[Biohazard]

You might want to vote for someone to build some jails first..

 

[Burnsy2023]

Concurrent sentences never made any sense to me.

 

[The Running Man]

Concurrent sentences never made any sense to me.

It just doesn't does it?

I mean, why only commit one crime when you can commit three and not get any longer in prison?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

If memory serves, sentencing guidelines will have to consider when the offences were committed and what the sentence might have been then. The 2003 SOA brought in more crimes and longer sentences.

I'll stand corrected on that if I'm wrong.

 

[The Running Man]

If memory serves, sentencing guidelines will have to consider when the offences were committed and what the sentence might have been then. The 2003 SOA brought in more crimes and longer sentences.

I'll stand corrected on that if I'm wrong.

You are correct but do the maths, he should be in for 69 months...instead because its concurrent he only serves 15. Besides the judge already gave him a 25% off voucher AND he might get 50% off once inside, for being normal and doing as expected, not being good, just not being bad.

Joke of a system.

 

[Biohazard]

It just doesn't does it?

I mean, why only commit one crime when you can commit three and not get any longer in prison?

That's not quite how I understand it. Consecutive sentences are for someone committing various types of crime, theft rape assault say, yet concurrent are for someone who commits three thefts etc

I think that is to somehow differentiate between someone committing one serious crime type if you would say rape, and for someone committing rapes and armed robberies as their second hobby for example.

That's only a guess mind you.

 

[The Running Man]

No concurrent would be for committing the same crime at the time the crime was committed. Each of these incidents are different, at different times and with different victims so should be classed and sentenced in a consecutive fashion.

For example, say someone is sexually assaulted in a single attack what crimes have been committed? GBA or abh for instance, plus threatening someone, plus detaining someone without cause, etc. Now I could understand all of thee being rolled into a single more serious sexual assault concurrent sentence.

Sexually assaulting two different people on seperate occasions should be classed as two seperate incidents and therefore for each one you should get a sentence which is then served consecutively with the other, as although they are in effect a punishment for the same category of crime they are two standalone acts that both require individual sentencing.

 

[^TANK^]

The maximum sentence the Judge could have ordered was 5 years (before considering any guilty pleas). After reading the judgement, I don't think 15 months was unreasonable.

I barely know who he is. When you look at the sentencing guidelines, his mitigations and the fact that they happened a long, long time ago, the sentence isn't crazy. Yes it could be a bit longer, but we're talking adding months, not years.

Kwerk is that you?

 

[Busa]

The maximum sentence the Judge could have ordered was 5 years (before considering any guilty pleas). After reading the judgement, I don't think 15 months was unreasonable.

You don`t think 15 months is unreasonable?.......what sentence do you think would be reasonable for just this part of the case then?

"Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, told the court that the broadcaster had carried the 13-year-old to a bathroom, where the mother of another partygoer undressed her. Left alone with his victim, Hall had touched her breasts and then penetrated her with at least one finger."

I read that this morning & felt sick...i hope someone cuts his throat in prison.

 

[ryder]

Hopefully somebody touches him up in prison... Then it'll be fair.

 

[Yas786]

It must be part his culture sexually abusing 9 yr old kids, the English community must do more to tackle this culture.

Nah mate, hes a closet muslim isnt he??...after all its what we muslims are best at

 

[The Running Man]

Hopefully somebody touches him up in prison... Then it'll be fair.

Hopefully consecutively and concurrently.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

You are correct but do the maths, he should be in for 69 months...instead because its concurrent he only serves 15. Besides the judge already gave him a 25% off voucher AND he might get 50% off once inside, for being normal and doing as expected, not being good, just not being bad.

Joke of a system.

You preach to the converted.

 

[Burnsy2023]

You preach to the converted.

Indeed. Like I said, I never understood the rationale to concurrent sentencing.

You don`t think 15 months is unreasonable?.......what sentence do you think would be reasonable for just this part of the case then?

"Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, told the court that the broadcaster had carried the 13-year-old to a bathroom, where the mother of another partygoer undressed her. Left alone with his victim, Hall had touched her breasts and then penetrated her with at least one finger."

I read that this morning & felt sick...i hope someone cuts his throat in prison.

Considering the law, no, I don't think it's unreasonable. see my comments here: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24468834&postcount=43

Whilst his crimes are pretty sick, I do believe in rehabilitation, and as such I don't see him being a risk to people today.