Stuart Hall

[FredPuli43]

The Attorney General has referred Hall's sentence of 15 months, for 14 indecent assaults on girls, to the Court of Appeal. No comment so far on AB, so is nobody surprised? What do you think he should get now? I think 3 years is in order, his guilty pleas notwithstanding

[Sharingan]

I'd say 5 to be honest bearing in mind at least one was only 9 years old.

[ferlew]

Until the day he dies.

[Octavius]

I suspect most people are waiting for the outcome, most thought it was a pitiful sentence.

[ichkeria]

I thought the maximum available sentence was 2 years, or have I misunderstood? Which means, with parole, that the maximum addition to the sentence would be 4.5 months.

[2sp_]

Am I right in thinking that there was also one count of rape that is to stay on the court records too? (Whatever that means.)

[boingo]

I agree with ferlew, although I'd rid him of his meat and two veg too.

[nannybooby]

Don't think the Attorney General had much choice it is his solicitors who are pushing at this stage. The slime ball should have had much longer not to mention having his dangly bits lopped off.

[jno]

was this the one who committed his crimes in days when sentences were lower? I'm starting to lose track. But yes, his sentence did seem to verge on the trivial.

[ichkeria]

The maximum apparently was 2 to 5 years. Not sure I understand the logic of that, but that's what it says :-)

[emmie]

5 years

[jno]

I can't see why he shouldn't receive something close to the maximum. But I suppose in an ugly way Savile has raised the bar. Hall's lawyer can say he's nothing like as bad a serial offender as Savile was.

[mushroom25]

read the sentencing remarks here:-
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-17062013.pdf
obviously a lenient sentence sends all the wrong messages - and yet the reasons were properly explained, including reference to 2 court of appeal decisions on historic cases, and the age of the perpetrator.

[Zeuhl]

Just as an aside ...

I notice how often it is women who casually refer to genital mutilation of male offenders.

so when women are convicted of sexual offences, should they be subjected to a full hysterectomy or just have their clitoris chopped off?

Just wondering, in the interests of fairness and equality.

[FredPuli43]

A count of rape was left on the file. That means that the man is not acquitted. But the count "is not to be proceeded with without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal". This is normally done when the defendant is convicted of serious offences and there is a count for some minor one which he indicates he is not having. Rather than having him enter a not guilty plea and that being accepted or having a trial on it, the prosecution ask for it be left on the file. In this case the complainant told the prosecution that she was happy for the rape count not to be tried. If she changed her mind, the prosecution could seek leave to have it tried.

The judge felt bound by the law at the time the offences were committed. The then maximum for the offence was 2 years, discounted by the plea of guilty. This overlooks the fact that there was not one offence, but fourteen, and a pattern of behaviour lasting years. The judge could have made sentences on each count consecutive or made a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences. That way the sentence overall would reflect the gravity of the criminal behaviour.

[2sp_]

Thank you for the explanation Fred.

[Supermike]

Bring back the stocks and allow us to throw rotten fruit and veg at him for a few years' and that's just for his contibution to "It's a Knockout." Then we can start on the more serious crimes!

[FredPuli43]

More serious crimes? Of course there are more serious crimes, but indecent assault is quite serious, which is why it is triable by a jury. This man, like so many, was able to go on committing crimes because the law then protected him. It is certain that he knew that, otherwise he would not have risked it.

The law protected him, not because he was famous or because complainants would never be believed, but because it required every sexual offence to be corroborated. The law on corroboration became so complicated that Lord Diplock, a judge in the highest court in the land, said, in 1973, that any trial judge's direction to the jury on it "bordered on unintelligible to the ordinary person" It was rooted in the old belief that a woman would allege rape or sexual assault to protect her reputation or for no reason at all. It required the jury to be told that they should not convict unless they found that there was independent evidence (such as injuries ) which tended to prove the crime.

The rule was abolished in 1994. The thinking behind it, however, persisted for some years in the minds of police officers and even prosecutors.

[sandyRoe]

Given his age, and the ignominy he's brought down on his own head, isn't the sentence about right?

[Mattk]

"Given his age, and the ignominy he's brought down on his own head, isn't the sentence about right?"

Absolutely not.

[boingo]

Zeuhl, it probably sounds sexist, and flippant too, but I feel strongly that anyone (male, female, old or young) who abuses children should be put away forever. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen.