Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

What the victims had to say:
"He caused devastation to us and other families; for so many people. [He] caused the maximum of grief for his own satisfaction. It was horrific enough, but to be faced with this on top of everything was a nightmare."
Click to expand...

What the police had to say:
"Clearly this has been a very emotive case, that has caused additional distress and suffering for families who have been trying to cope with the loss of loved ones."
Click to expand...

What the judge had to say:
"You have caused untold distress to already grieving friends and family."
Click to expand...

What Sean Duffy's OWN LAWYER had to say:
"In terms of mitigation there is none. I cannot imagine the trauma and anxiety caused to the families of these horrible, despicable offences."
Click to expand...

What Sean Duffy had to say:
"Guilty"
Click to expand...

But to Hell with all that, eh? Al Vallario, Joshy and Gambitt, you guys are right; we should all be sympathising with Sean Duffy - and definitely not his victims, and you guys most certainly know more than the people involved in this case. Of course, I'm just saying all of this because I'm a mindless government drone without "an ounce of free thought" :rolleyes: .
 
mcast said:
People that make a facebook remembrance page, then cry when someone spams them should be jailed, idiots.

If I lost a loved one, people close to that person would have already made their feelings known without facebook.
Click to expand...

While I personally find posting 'RIP' and other such comments on a facebook page a bit strange. There's no doubt that such pages are a way for people to express their thoughts and share them with other people who have also been affected.

It even happens on these forums, when members have died.

In the age of the internet, not everyone knows people in real life. Posting messages on places like Facebook is their way of expressing their feelings.

I can't see how you can seriously say that someone is an 'idiot' for being upset that a page dedicated to someone's memory has been defaced by some moron.

Would you say the same is someone had painted messages of hate on someone's grave stone?
 
gambitt said:
Sorry no link - only personal experience :o
Click to expand...

OK. It sounds like you're talking about the fact that, if you are denied leave to appeal by the lower court, you can appeal to the higher court who will then assess whether to grant you leave to appeal themselves. That's the process I'm aware of, and for which I can find documentation. Perhaps there is something else though. Someone go and find Raymond Lin and get him to stop photographing ladies in parks and put his lawyer hat on.
 
Probably not the best link but all I could find in a rush :D

http://j12.org/ps/advice.htm

Leave to appeal is decided initially by a single judge, who just looks at the papers submitted by counsel. The single judge's decisions are usually negative and designed to put appellants off, so don't be discouraged if you get a refusal of leave to appeal. Recently Kevin Callan was refused leave to appeal by the single judge - but when it came to the appeal itself, his case was so strong that the crown didn't offer any evidence. If leave is refused at this stage, your application can nevertheless go on to be heard by the full court of three judges.

If you're sentenced by Magistrates you can appeal in the Crown Court - if you're sentenced in Crown then you have to appeal in the Court of Appeal in London and a barrister has to travel there to represent you.
 
Last edited:
gambitt said:
Probably not the best link but all I could find in a rush :D

http://j12.org/ps/advice.htm

Leave to appeal is decided initially by a single judge, who just looks at the papers submitted by counsel. The single judge's decisions are usually negative and designed to put appellants off, so don't be discouraged if you get a refusal of leave to appeal. Recently Kevin Callan was refused leave to appeal by the single judge - but when it came to the appeal itself, his case was so strong that the crown didn't offer any evidence. If leave is refused at this stage, your application can nevertheless go on to be heard by the full court of three judges.

If you're sentenced by Magistrates you can appeal in the Crown Court - if you're sentenced in Crown then you have to appeal in the Court of Appeal in London and a barrister has to travel there to represent you.
Click to expand...

Given that they are still referring an 0171 number on that page, I fear their guidance may not be up to date, and there have been changes in this field in recent years.
 
Okay Al Vallario, let's forget about the crime aspect for a moment: Sean Duffy systematically and purposefully targeted innocent, grieving families with hateful, malicious and unprovoked 'attacks' when they were at their most vulnerable. He wasn't simply leaving a few negative comments on Facebook pages, he went much, much further than that, as is clearly evident. None of that is under debate, surely. So, why shouldn't society seek to protect our vulnerable people and punish those that try to (and do) cause harm in the manner that Sean Duffy did?

Al Vallario said:
I'm arguing that the law in question is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but why don't you think his actions deserve punishment? And if you do think he deserves punishing, what do you think is an appropriate level of punishment?
 
Punishment, yes. Prison, no. Why is prison the answer to everything? The criminal justice system is failing - just look at re-offending rates. He's obviously a social retard with a possible personality disorder. Guys like this need re-educating not to be locked in a cell for 23 hours a day for 2 months.
 
gambitt said:
Punishment, yes. Prison, no. Why is prison the answer to everything? The criminal justice system is failing - just look at re-offending rates. He's obviously a social retard with a possible personality disorder. Guys like this need re-educating not to be locked in a cell for 23 hours a day for 2 months.
Click to expand...

I must admit that I found it odd that he was given a custodial sentence when at least part of this will fall with his social ineptitude. Someone mentioned earlier that by his age he should have built coping mechanisms so that he can artificially empathise and understand the effect of his actions, but if he hasn't then that needs sorting out. That's normally the point that you send someone for psychological treatment, in this case probably on an open ward, given that he poses no serious threat to anyone's safety.
 
Nothing to go to prison for. It's really been blown out of proportion by the public.

Theres people who have been sentenced less for assault/thievery.

I find it a joke really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom