Soldato
I would need to know what all of the charges were to come to any sort of reasoned conclusion to whether the sentence makes sense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222
One of his victims was just 9 years old.
I would need to know what all of the charges were to come to any sort of reasoned conclusion to whether the sentence makes sense.
As if it makes it much less worse The comments that some of these legal types come out with are astounding.
You have to be rich and famous as well, and not get caught for several years.Mental note, if I choose to molest and abuse minors, I'll keep it to under 13 victims. No real harm is done then !
Facts
EDIT: Stuart Hall was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment on 17 June 2013. More to follow.
Stuart Hall, 83, pleaded guilty to 14 offences which occurred between 1967 and 1985. There is one count of rape which will lie on the file – this means that the charge will not be proceeded with without the leave of the Court of Appeal. This usually happens where the offence is not admitted by the defendant, the judge agrees there is sufficient evidence to have a trial., but the prosecution decide (usually as a result of pleas to other offences) there is no need to secure a conviction on the matter, but do not want to offer to evidence. The matter can be reinstituted but this is rare.
You may remember that Mr Hall had previously referred to the allegations as “pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious”.
The BBC report was as follows: “Preston Crown Court previously heard that in the 1980s Hall molested a nine-year-old girl by putting his hand up her clothing.
He also kissed a 13-year-old girl on the lips after saying to her: “People need to show thanks in other ways.”
CPS Chief Crown Prosecutor Nazir Afzal described Hall as an opportunistic predator. He went on to say that Mr Hall’s victims did not know each other and that although almost two decades separated the assaults, the victims provided strikingly similar accounts.
Sentencing
Sentencing in historic sex cases can be complex and difficult.
Here are some basic principles from the guideline case on sentencing historic sexual offences, R v H 2012 2 Cr App R (S) 21:
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.
2) Article 7(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibits the imposition of a heavier penalty than one “applicable” at the time when the offence was committed.
3) Although sentence must be limited to the maximum sentence at the date when the offence was committed, it is wholly unrealistic to attempt an assessment of sentence by seeking to identify in (2013) what the sentence for the individual offence was likely to have been if the offence had come to light at or shortly after the date when it was committed.
4) Similarly, if maximum sentences have been reduced, as in some instances, for example theft, they have, the more severe attitude to the offence in earlier years, even if it could be established, should not apply.
5) As always, the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed and its seriousness must be the main focus. Due allowance for the passage of time may be appropriate. The date may have a considerable bearing on the offender’s culpability.
I would need to know what all of the charges were to come to any sort of reasoned conclusion to whether the sentence makes sense.
"One of the girls was nine years old when Hall assaulted her" that's 10 years in my book alone.
Stuart Hall's barrister Crispin Aylett, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300.
Peter Sutcliffe should have got this clown to defend him at his trial, he'd be out now...
Sexual assault of any kind if as bad as murder, got it.
Not condoning the offences, but if the guy is 86 - what difference would it make if you sentenced him to 1 year or 1000 years - he wont be around for much longer looking at the state of him!
The repeated sexual abuse of young children, too young to consent and in no position to resist your advances, even if the individual acts are relatively mild, is a serious crime and it must be made clear to anyone tempted to take advantage of young children and other vulnerable victims that they face condemnation and punishment.
Count 6 was significantly more serious. It involved a 13 year old girl who was subjected to a series of sexual indignities at your hands at her home on Boxing Day 1976. The victim had been drinking and was sick and you took advantage of the situation when she was in the bathroom and bathing to touch her naked breasts, inserted a finger in her vagina and kissed her upper body and touched her all over.
After reading the judgement, I don't think 15 months was unreasonable.
So basically if you're rich and/or famous, you can assault a bunch of children, plead guilty, get sent to prison and be let out again in 5 minutes?
Where is the justice in that?
Fan of his are you ?
After reading the judgement, I don't think 15 months was unreasonable.
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.