Is Labour Starting To Abolish Democracy...
News4 mins ago
24 Hours In Police Custody.
12 Answers
Did anybody watch 24 Hours Police Custody on Monday night ? If so, can you explain why the woman got away with a 16 month sentence ?? I often wonder how lengths of sentence are calculated.
FBG40
FBG40
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
>>> I often wonder how lengths of sentence are calculated All of the guidelines that judges have to work to are in the public domain. (Judges are obliged to stick to the guidelines other than in really exceptional circumstance
16:11 Wed 14th Apr 2021
Yes, I watched it. She wasn't charged with murder (although in my opinion she should have been). A lot of pap was talked about at the court case of how she too had been a victim of abuse in her past. As usual the Judge put her first instead of her poor victim who seemed like a lovely man. I felt so sorry for him.
>>> I often wonder how lengths of sentence are calculated
All of the guidelines that judges have to work to are in the public domain. (Judges are obliged to stick to the guidelines other than in really exceptional circumstances, when they must explain why they've deviated from those guidelines in open court).
For example, the woman in the case to you refer to was originally arrested for GBH with intent. Had she actually faced that charge in court, these guidelines would have applied:
https:/
However she was eventually only charged with ABH, meaning that it was these guidelines that the judge had to work to:
https:/
(Note that the maximum penalty allowed by law for ABH is 5 year's imprisonment but the guidelines only allow an actual maximum sentence of 3 years. Further, a judge must reduce a sentence by one third for an early guilty plea, reducing the maximum down to 2 years).
I didn't watch the programme but I've been reading this:
https:/
As I see it, there was no hope whatsoever of the woman being found guilty of either murder or manslaughter, as the was no evidence (meeting the 'reasonable' doubt test) to show that her actions led to the man's death.
So that would leave the Crown Prosecution Service wanting to pursue a 'GBH with intent' charge. However they will have been aware that the victim's statement saying that he'd fallen while drunk and hit his head (which could no longer be challenged after his death) might have led to a jury deciding that there was sufficient doubt in the CPS's case to acquit the defendant, allowing her to get off scot-free.
Thus a 'GBH with intent' charge would have been risky both for the CPS and for the defendant. Facing such a charge, she'd have been risking a hefty sentence, while the CPS would have been risking losing the case altogether.
So the CPS has almost certainly approached the defendant's barrister and said "If your client will agree to plead guilty to it, we'll drop the charge to ABH". By doing so they'll have ensured that the defendant received a prison sentence, even if it's a lot shorter than one for 'GBH with intent' would have been, rather than risking seeing her being acquitted altogether.
All of the guidelines that judges have to work to are in the public domain. (Judges are obliged to stick to the guidelines other than in really exceptional circumstances, when they must explain why they've deviated from those guidelines in open court).
For example, the woman in the case to you refer to was originally arrested for GBH with intent. Had she actually faced that charge in court, these guidelines would have applied:
https:/
However she was eventually only charged with ABH, meaning that it was these guidelines that the judge had to work to:
https:/
(Note that the maximum penalty allowed by law for ABH is 5 year's imprisonment but the guidelines only allow an actual maximum sentence of 3 years. Further, a judge must reduce a sentence by one third for an early guilty plea, reducing the maximum down to 2 years).
I didn't watch the programme but I've been reading this:
https:/
As I see it, there was no hope whatsoever of the woman being found guilty of either murder or manslaughter, as the was no evidence (meeting the 'reasonable' doubt test) to show that her actions led to the man's death.
So that would leave the Crown Prosecution Service wanting to pursue a 'GBH with intent' charge. However they will have been aware that the victim's statement saying that he'd fallen while drunk and hit his head (which could no longer be challenged after his death) might have led to a jury deciding that there was sufficient doubt in the CPS's case to acquit the defendant, allowing her to get off scot-free.
Thus a 'GBH with intent' charge would have been risky both for the CPS and for the defendant. Facing such a charge, she'd have been risking a hefty sentence, while the CPS would have been risking losing the case altogether.
So the CPS has almost certainly approached the defendant's barrister and said "If your client will agree to plead guilty to it, we'll drop the charge to ABH". By doing so they'll have ensured that the defendant received a prison sentence, even if it's a lot shorter than one for 'GBH with intent' would have been, rather than risking seeing her being acquitted altogether.
They are a bit harder across the pond. Bernie Madoff (who has just died in Gaol) got 150 years for swindling millions - when he appealed for release after serving 11 years of "suffering", Judge Denny Chin denied his request, noting that many victims were still suffering due to their financial losses, and further stated,"I also believe that Mr. Madoff was never truly remorseful, and that he was only sorry that his life as he knew it was collapsing around him".
Link if you want more :- https:/
Link if you want more :- https:/
1 to 12 of 12
