Political correctness gone mad

[mongers]

Interesting interview with John Cooper QC on channel 4 news, he's the barrister who recently represented Occupy St.Pauls in court.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/270312/clipid/270312_4ON_twitter_27

[crazy canuck]

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.

[Sheilbh]

It's a criminal offense in the UK to alarm or distress someone? 

It can be:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
Both of those offences could be racially aggravated.

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.

I don't think that's Cooper's argument.  He lists what the judge would take into account and then says he may 'perhaps' have had no alternative to imprison.  I don't think there's a minimum sentence and Cooper thinks it's excessive.

[crazy canuck]

It's a criminal offense in the UK to alarm or distress someone? 

It can be:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
Both of those offences could be racially aggravated.

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.

I don't think that's Cooper's argument.  He lists what the judge would take into account and then says he may 'perhaps' have had no alternative to imprison.  I don't think there's a minimum sentence and Cooper thinks it's excessive.

You need to listen a little further on.  The interviewer expressly invites him to say imprisonment was improper and brings up the case of another person sentenced to community service.  He makes the point that they are different statutes and that under this one Prison is the required sentence. He expressly says he thinks the number of days was excessive though and that is when he lists the factors you mention.

edit: In fact at about 49 seconds he says exactly what I stated.  Whilst there was no alternative but to imprison the issue is the number of days given or words to that effect.  You are reading way too much into the "perhaps".  That is just his manner of speaking...

[mongers]

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 just posted it as I thought it interesting, given his previous position on defending freedom of speech, not that I though it in anyway supported my opinions.

[Sheilbh]

You need to listen a little further on.  The interviewer expressly invites him to say imprisonment was improper and brings up the case of another person sentenced to community service.  He makes the point that they are different statutes and that under this one Prison is the required sentence. He expressly says he thinks the number of days was excessive though and that is when he lists the factors you mention.

I listened to the end.  The impression I got was that he thinks it was right that he should be imprisoned but not for so long.  The different statutes have different tariffs and so, perhaps, the CPS got their charging wrong in Newcastle because he was charged with a lesser offence.  You could be correct but my view of Cooper's argument wasn't that there was a minimum sentence the judge applied.

[crazy canuck]

If you could dig up the statute he is referring to that would end our suspence. 

[Sheilbh]

If you could dig up the statute he is referring to that would end our suspence. 

As I say different articles give different crimes.  None of the crimes mentioned have minimum sentences and they have the same maximum summary custodial sentence (six months).  But the Newcastle boy (who got community service) was convicted of a crime that can carry a maximum fine of up to 'level 5 on the standard scale', the other two can be fined up to the statutory maximum.

But I don't know how sentencing works, so I assume that means the 2003 Communications Act crime is a lower tariff in general?

[The Brain]

Brits have bizarre laws. Film at 11.

[Sheilbh]

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

[Martinus]

Insane.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[crazy canuck]

Insane.

The legal representation or your interpretation in the OP?

[Admiral Yi]

jackofkent

he he.  he he.

Still blows my mind that it's a criminal offense to use insulting language with the intent to cause distress.

[Razgovory]

Insane.

You called?