Political correctness gone mad

[Sheilbh]

he he.  he he.

I love the name for a legal blog.  Jack of Kent's a figure in English folklore who routinely outwits the devil by paying very close attention to what they've said.  So he'll normally make a deal with the devil and then fulfil it to the letter, but not the spirit, leaving the devil unsatisfied.

[grumbler]

I haven't see the story where it said he pleaded guilty.  The BBC story just says that he admitted posting the remarks (which the BBC called "racially offensive"), as far as I can see.

It was last week: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17434587

Today's hearing was just for sentencing.

In that story, also, he merely admitted that he posted the remarks.  He did say that he "shouldn't have," which I suppose in the UK is an admission that his acts were criminal.

Weird legal system.  Glad the US has nothing like it. 

[Sheilbh]

In that story, also, he merely admitted that he posted the remarks.  He did say that he "shouldn't have," which I suppose in the UK is an admission that his acts were criminal.

I think that's just the BBC being colloquial and using 'admits' instead of 'pleaded guilty'.  It also takes up half the space.

[mongers]

His sentence appeal's been denied. 

He wasn't charged with incitement to racial hatred.  Rather 'he admitted that he used threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to users of the Twitter Internet Messaging Service. He also accepted that his offence was racially aggravated.'

The Court's ruling's here:
http://jackofkent.com/2012/03/r-v-stacey-appeal-on-sentence-dismissed/#comments

I hope he's allowed to resit this year at uni so his entire life isn't ruined by this

Sheilbh, when he pled guilty he "accepted" a lot more than that.  Having read what the Appeal Court had to say about the facts I am still stunned that a guilty plea was made in this case.  This is what he accepted when he pled guilty.

18. It must also be emphasised that the Appellant has pleaded guilty to a crime of specific intent. He intended to use words which were offensive and he intended that the words should be racially offensive.

If he had not pled guilty it would have been very hard, if not impossible, for the prosecution to prove that there was such a specific intent.

The other thing that I dont understand is the submission his lawyer made on sentencing.

14. Mr Hobson, on behalf of the appellant, expressly acknowledges that the Appellant deserves significant punishment for the offence which he committed. Mr Hobson does not submit that a sentence of imprisonment was wrong in principle. He does submit, however, that such are the mitigating factors in this case that we can take a course of action which is alternative to an immediate sentence of imprisonment. Mr Hobson invites us to impose a stringent community order or a suspended sentence of imprisonment coupled with appropriate punitive requirements. We should record that Mr Hobson expressly accepts that if a sentence of immediate imprisonment is the appropriate sentence a term of 56 days was not too long.

I am not sure why Mr. Hobson acknowledged that a prison sentence was not wrong in principle.  The Court noted there are no prior decisions.  The statute provides for prison or fine.  Why Mr. Hobson didnt make a submission along the lines that prison sentences should be reserved for the most serious of facts patterns and this was the most minor is beyond me.

I am further baffled at why Mr. Hobson would have agreed that a term of 56 days was not too long.  Again there are no cases to guide that judgment.  Why he didnt make a submission along the lines that if a prison sentence was appropriate that it should be much shorter is also beyond me.

Lastly, Mr. Hobson's submission that a prison term of 56 days was not wrong in principle but give him less anyway is not the most compelling argument I have ever seen.

Elements of it sound almost as if they've come from a show trial; good job I live in a free society rather than something like the Soviet Union. 

[Malthus]

I say the court should give that guy three free swings at his lawyer's head.  WTF was he thinking?

[Ideologue]

So the judge had no choice but to send him to prison because of minimum sentence requirements under the statute. This guy is making the point that the number of days in prison was excessive not that he was sent to prison.

The unanswered question is why the Defendant pled guilty in the first place.

I was gonna say appeal, but apparently not.  WTFF.

I'm going to Britain to be a barrister.  Clearly there should be a job opening up soon.

[crazy canuck]

Sheilbh,

What are the chances this guy can mount an appeal based on a claim he recieved terrible advice?

btw, I was once involved in a case where the other party did something similar - the opposing lawyer swore an affidavit saying he was suffering from a brain tumor at the time of the hearing.  That was enough to get the Court of Appeal to take a fresh look.  The court concluded that even if the other side had been properly represented they would have not succeeded (both the facts and law were against them)  - I always thought that he they had been properly advised the case would never have made it to court.

Based on the media reports there appear to have been clear errors made.  It may be that the reports do not give the full picture but what we can see looks pretty bad.

[Ideologue]

This is going to sound like a rhetorical question, but it's a real one--is there any speech that "constitutionally" cannot be prohibited in the UK, or is it really just the whim of Parliament?

[mongers]

This is going to sound like a rhetorical question, but it's a real one--is there any speech that "constitutionally" cannot be prohibited in the UK, or is it really just the whim of Parliament?

Sadly no on both counts, we have no right of freedom of speech. 

And as this case highlights, your right to express a view/opinion is very much at the whim of other people deciding not to get upset by what you say.

Which is why pretty much my sole political activity is campaigning for it, in various ways. 

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh,

What are the chances this guy can mount an appeal based on a claim he recieved terrible advice?

I think you can appeal if the advice is that bad, you can also claim for damages.  But I don't know in this case.

Having said that I'm not sure the advice is that bad.  There's around 3000 convictions under this crime every year, it may well be that he had very little chance - especially once he'd admitted everything to the police the first day - and that this length of custodial sentence is relatively standard.  In the experience of the judge and the barrister this may have been a pretty easy case.

This is going to sound like a rhetorical question, but it's a real one--is there any speech that "constitutionally" cannot be prohibited in the UK, or is it really just the whim of Parliament?

Technically Parliament could do anything.  So it could prohibit all sorts of speech.  The courts can't strike down Acts of Parliament even (though this is a common misconception) if they're against the Human Rights Act.

But our constitution's pretty fluid, so if Parliament passed a law blatantly against our constitutional principles then chances are the Courts would respond in a way totally beyond their normal powers.  The Blair government tried to pass an Immigration Act in 2003 that would have included an ouster clause so that immigrants and asylum seekers couldn't have access to the courts on any grounds after a decision was reached by the Home Office.  So they couldn't appeal it and they couldn't even ask for judicial review of how the decision was made.  That was clearly seen as an attack on a fundamental part of the constitution.  So lots of senior judges - including a number of Law Lords - said this needed to be reconsidered and the Lord Chief Justice suggested that if it did pass courts should refuse to apply that section of the law.

Similarly we recently had an anniversary of the Supreme Court (which for a seemingly meaningless reform has been very good) and the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, was asked in an interview about what if Parliament did pass a law that totally restricted fundamental freedoms.  His answer was 'if Parliament were to do the unprecedented then perhaps the Courts would also do the unprecedented', implying the Supreme Court in those circumstances would strike down a law and provoke a full-blown constitutional crisis that would probably lead to a codified constitution

[Richard Hakluyt]

There is also a majority of people saying ".......thay can't do that!"

The last time that happened was probably the poll tax about 20 years back. The old rates system had a compliance rate of 99%, something like 25% refused to pay the poll tax. It staggered on for a year or two and was then replaced.

This doesn't help in cases like this of course, he was rude and foul-mouthed.....................very few will put themselves out to help him.

[Eddie Teach]

Don't they understand that their own right to be rude and foul-mouthed is at stake? 

[Richard Hakluyt]

He should have used "Etonians" instead of "Niggers", then he would have had no problems.

[Sheilbh]

There is also a majority of people saying ".......thay can't do that!"

Exactly.  A lot of our checks and balances are political, not legal.  So, for example, Parliament can't entrench legislation - like the Hungarian government has been - there's no supermajorities or anything like that.

[Richard Hakluyt]

In many ways it is a good system. For instance, back in 1939 it allowed us to set up a totalitarian state, with the full support of the people, in very short order. I do think it can fall short when unpleasant people fall foul of an unjust law.