Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Sledgehammer Meets Nut

A columnist writes (edited extract)

So, just 10 days after tweeting vile racist abuse about footballer Fabrice Muamba, student Liam Stacey has been jailed. A victory, and instant justice, in the fight against racism. A sign of how Britain has changed in this new post-racial nation we live in. "Tweet justice," says the Sun newspaper headline. "LOL Ha-Ha!"
Well, hold on. Am I the only one to think that 56 days in jail for a drunken rant, despicable though it was – so noxious, in fact, that no newspaper has the stomach to publish it – is a bit severe? Yes, punish him; but if he is to change his behaviour, which we all want to see, he hardly needs a sentence of this length. I'd be happy to see him do some community work, where he might come into contact with some of those he currently dehumanises.

And whether you give drunken tweeters 56 days, or five years, or a life behind bars, it doesn't address the fact that the real racial abuses, the real peddlers of hate in this country, are going about their business with no fear of being held to account.
Seems fair comment to me.

The Guidelines are at page 42 of this PDF. It's hard to square them with this sentence.

86 comments:

  1. I am sure that it has not escaped your notice BS, the liberals have taken over the asylum that is now our criminal justice system. Whereas most offenders are 'victims' and need help rather than any effective punishment/rehabilitation, the liberals turn rabid when it comes to racists, homophobes etc. These are real offenders and need to feel the full force of the law. You seem to have got the first bit but I think you need another spell of brainwashing to get you back on track re the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Bystander, I'd second your post. A community service would have been more suitable, and better matched to the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He got jail because he was white

    ReplyDelete
  4. Malpas: unlikely. Most people jailed for racial hatred offences are brown (generally Islamist extremists, most often for publishing vile things about Jews). He got jail because we live in a society that's developed a ridiculous attitude to 'offence'. The Muslim idiot who's up on trial next month for posting on FB that squaddies in Afghanistan were scumbags and he's glad they're dead is also highly likely to get jail, and also shouldn't be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yet the Somalia Moslem girl gang that launched a brutal, unprovoked attack on a bystander, shouting "kill the white slag" whilst pulling out clumps of her hear and taking turns to kick her whilst she was defenceless on the ground get away with a suspended sentence.

    Are some (undoubtedly offensive) tweets really more deserving of jail time than a vicious assault? Or is skin colour and religion playing a part in what is supposed to be justice?

    [Original story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html]

    ReplyDelete
  6. What concerns me to a large extent is that Freedom of Speech seems to be nibbled away at by these rulings and other actions over the last year or two, when in reality it ought to be the other way round.

    I had high hopes that the Ryan Giggs twitter episode would clearly show the political and judicial classes that the man in the street preferred and valued the Right to Free Speech and that libel and similar causes of action would die a death. Unfortunately the subsequent hysteria over listening in to Millie Dowlers voicemails seems to have put the kibosh on that.

    I doubt that it is going to happen, but I would be happy if the Levenson enquiry came to the conclusion that investigative journalism is an extremely sleazy business at the low end, but it should be protected because at the high end it exposes dishonesty and false dealings in politics. If you want an example I would point out the way that the US Courts have consistently protected pornography partially because they have accepted that not to do so would be the thin end of the wedge in an assault on Freedom of Speech.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There have been some astonishing crown court sentencing decisions recently, the most concerning being the one mentioned above by anonymous. But also the suspended sentences for 'carers' involved in prolonged abuse of elderly residents, many high value, long term 'theft' of public funds through fraudulent benefit claims, and class A drug supply. All with apparently undemanding requirements. These offenders effectively went unpunished except the impact on their reputations or careers if they had any. So what is it about the Liam Stacey case that called for an unsuspended custodial sentence (although the custody criteria do not even appear to have been met)?

    ReplyDelete
  8. PS. I do realise that Stacey was jailed by a DJ, not a CC Judge.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The poor man has also been kicked out of university, and won't be able finish his degree. He should've been given a community sentence, maybe with a rustication, and when he's learned his lesson zllowed back to study.

    His entire life ruined, while much worse offenders walk free.
    I think that sentencing needs a major overhaul, and equal for all be they somali women or white men.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am surprised that NOBODY seems to actually look at the Sentencing Guidelines. The charge was Public Order Act 1986 s.4A (Racially aggravated disorderly behaviour with intent to cause harassment, alarm of distress). There was a guilty plea. It seems that the defendant "tweeted" several times.

    When you look at the sentencing guidance, you will see examples given relating to "offence seriousness." This defendant's actions were not a "group action", were not really "deliberately planned" and certainly no weapons used. The fact that there were several "tweets" adds somewhat to the seriousness but the "tweeting" was only over a short period.

    There are also aggravating and mitigating factors. Certainly, there was NO high degree of planning here and his offending was over a short period and was hardly likely to have any serious impact on Fabrice Muamba.

    Thus far, in my opinion, we are only at the level of medium community penalty.

    The sentence must be increased to allow for the racial element. Thus, perhaps we get to high level community penalty. Even then, any offender mitigation (e.g. good record, remorse) has to be considered and allowance must be made for the prompt guilty plea.

    In this case, if the guidance is followed - as it should be - we do not get even close to a prison sentence let alone 56 days.

    I notice that this sentence was handed down by a District Judge. I was not there and did not hear the sentencing remarks. (This is why I am a great advocate of requiring sentencing remarks to be published). The judge ought to have stated what the sentence would have been but for the racial aggravation - it is not reported whether he did so or not but it is a requirement.

    I intensely dislike the behaviour of Liam Stacey. His prosecution was entirely merited. His sentence is way beyond the guidance and was not justified in law.

    I cannot help but think that, just like the handling of the August 2011 disorder cases, District Judges are a law unto themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Stacey's tweets may be seen at

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE

    ReplyDelete
  12. We are all agreed that this bloke's behaviour is utterly unacceptable, although as far as we know it is a first offence, basically a single dialogue (numerous messages within a short period of time being analogous to speech), and might even have been arguably not fulfilling the offence had he gone not guilty, on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence for harassment, alarm or distress. However, the sentence seems disproportionate and unconstructive. Better would have been conditional discharge banning him from using a cell phone for a year and from Twitting for 5 years.

    Meanwhile, who are the people who presumably must sign up to receive Twits from people like him ? Have they nothing better in their little lives to do ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I imagine his friends are following him on Twitter. If the reports in the article are to be believed, he was a fairly normal person who for whatever reason decided to post some incredibly offensive comments when he was drunk.

      Things can spread very quickly on Twitter: doubtless some/all of his friends were offended, and probably reposted what he said with comments to the effect of "what is wrong with this guy?" The people following THEM in turn reposted saying "I agree" and... you get the idea. A bit like the Kevin Bacon game with films.

      I'd agree with the general view that has been expressed: what he did was completely unacceptable, but the punishment seems much too severe in the circumstances.

      Delete
    2. StC: Thank-you. You clearly understand this Tweeting stuff better than me. But perhaps a relevant question is whether that sort of Tweet propagation is harassment, alarm, or distress as anticipated by the Act (and whether the propagators are as responsible for that as the initiator). Since he went guilty, I suppose it is moot in this case, but it would have been a useful thing to establish for future purposes, I should have thought.

      Delete
    3. Actually, you don't need to "follow" someone to see their tweets. Most tweets are public by default. Although you can follow specific people and that shows up in your main timeline view, you can also view the stream for trending topics or any topic you search for (e.g. search for Muamba and see what anyone, anywhere is saying about that topic at that time and in the past to some extent too). It's much more like blogging (and is sometimes called micro-blogging), than Facebook which is generally more restricted to your network.

      Delete
  13. Thanks to Obiter J. I assumed that he was charged under the offensive telecomm provisions, but S4 r/agg it was.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Very off topic, but worth listening to Crispin Blunt on Money Box today at around 12.35.But probably best not to carrying anything breakable at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My own take on this case is at:

    http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/you-be-judge-was-56-days-imprisonment.html

    Thanks to Bystander for raising this interesting case

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with your sentiments, Bystander, and also those of the journalist, especially as the victim was in a medically-induced coma during the whole period in which this comment was on Twitter, and therefore the offence would have had to be assigned the lowest category. Racial aggravation would increase the ultimate sentence, but I wonder whether the outcome may have more to do with the fact that the case was handed to a DJ rather than a bench of three, any two of whom might have talked sense into the third, or if necessary, overruled.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In My view a Community Order was the answer here, even if at the higher end. I could have lived with a suspended sentence but to send this guy straight to gaol is counter productive.Yes, he has a been a bit of a shit, and yes his tweeting was repugnat. But as BS say's we want to punish and stop the behaviour. This lad doesn't seem to be much of a threat t oanyone, if anything a bit pathetic. If you compare it with what went on up in Newcastle with the similar behaviour charged under the Communications legislation 240hrs unpaid work was more like it.

    God save us from kneejerk sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I agree with the general view that this was a disgusting offence, but merits no more than a community sentence. Of course he has no effective route of appeal because by the time the Crown Court could schedule an appeal he would already have been released. This raises an interesting point, in motoring cases where the sentence is a discretionery disqualification, if notice of appeal is given immediately we are advised to suspend the disqualification until the appeal has been heard for similar reasons. Should there not be a similar provision where the sentence is very much greater? This should not apply in all cases, only say to non-violent offences where the sentence is less than a certain length.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The appeal is being heard today - Friday 30th so I think that's pretty fast work. For the record, I think he will win his appeal as the sentence seems manifestly wrong.

      Delete
    2. Appeals against a custodiial sentence are usually expedited, as in this case.

      Delete
    3. He lost - trying to find out why - see other posts

      Delete
  19. So.... what is the likelihood of an appeal against the sentence?

    ReplyDelete
  20. That's a matter for him and his lawyers. It would be tricky to get an appeal on before he is released. 56 days equates to 28 days to serve, and he may well be released on tag well before that, so it must be tempting to just sit it out.
    The University seems to have acted precipitately in slinging him out, and I suspect that decision may be subject to appeal as it should be. It is double punishment, and seems to have been decided on the fly. He is entitled to a proper hearing on such an important decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently it has been appealed and the sentence upheld. Is there any more detail anywhere?

      Delete
  21. When you see robbers and burglars getting less it does seem very strange. However racism trumps everything now.

    ReplyDelete
  22. One interesting point here is that the subject of "publication" hasn't really been aired. Do people who publish remarks like this via Twitter, FaceBook or whatever, realise that they are really publishing, in a similar manner to the media?

    I suspect that there are a lot of people, like this offender, who don't fully realise that when they type a few vile and offensive words via a service like Twitter they are, in reality, publishing their words and are subject to the various provisions in law that apply to any publication.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "tweets" were certainly published but please note that "publication" is not actually an element in the offence with which Stacey was charged.

      He accepted his guilt.

      Delete
  23. Two elements in this sentence are particularly unclear:

    1. What would the sentence have been but for the racial agg.

    2. What discount was allowed for a guilty plea.

    It could be that the media reports pay little to no attention to such minutiae and this is why we ought to be able to read sentencing remarks on an official website. Is that too much to hope? Up to now, only in certain Crown Court cases have remarks been published.

    I would venture to suggest that the appeal to Crown Court is likely to see a different sentence substituted. As they say - (or used to say) - Stacey has now heard the clang of the prison gates !!

    ReplyDelete
  24. A few observations.

    The first is that according to The Metro today he is appealing against sentence. The second is that I expect time will somehow be found to hear it quickly. The third that benches of lay magistrates are fully equipped to deal with this sort of thing and had it been a lay bench, rather than a DJ, the outcome may well have been different. The only problem with that would have been the headlines about magistrates letting people off lightly and why hadn't he been hung drawn and quartered?

    ReplyDelete
  25. STOP PRESS He lost the appeal...not yet read any commentary so not sure of any sentencing remarks...

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2012/r-v-stacey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm.

      Appeal was against imediate custody and not the length of the custody.

      I was of the opinion that the sentence was too severve having not seen any of the tweets.

      Having just read the appeal judgement I think the correct course of action was taken.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, the only conclusion I have come to on reading that is that it is the most amateur and limp appeal I have seen.

      Of course on the other hand the courts seem to have gone more machismo in their sentencing since the riots, with a view to ensuring that certain types of behaviour are stamped out, so maybe it is not unreasonable after all....

      Delete
    3. Agree. DCS aka Baldybeak

      Delete
  27. I can't disagree with most of the arguments raised here - in my humble opinion, it's a knee-jerk sentence designed to please the red-tops. Surely, scraping racist graffiti off subways for 200 hours would be more fitting?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, there was no substitute sentence. The BBC's report is at:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17562016

    Wyn Williams J said that - "it cannot be argued that 56 days is too long for this offence."

    Well, many see it as out of kilter with the Magistrates' Courts guidelines. But there we are ... he must now serve his time.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The judgment starts by referring to the wrong statute and then gets worse. Why would the DJ's sentencing remarks not be before the court, and how in their absence could the court not go through a complete resentencing exercise and explain in detail why they came to the same conclusion as the DJ? Why does the court say that there are no relevant sentencing guidelines, when clearly there are?

    Also, it looks like defence counsel conceded that 56 days imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle, and thus gave the court no reason to impose a reduced sentence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Crown Court’s sentencing remarks.

      The opening paragraph refers to the charge being Public Order Act 1986 s.31. I think that this should read Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.31.

      The Crown Court’s sentencing remarks are here.
      The opening paragraph refers to the charge being Public Order Act 1986 s.31. That section is repealed – see here. I think that the opening paragraph should read Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.31 – see the post above.

      Para. 14 of the judgment is also interesting in that the defence appear to have accepted that Stacey deserved significant punishment for the offence which he committed. Furthermore, the defence did not submit that a sentence of imprisonment was wrong in principle. However, it was argued that there were mitigating factors in the case to enable the court to impose an alternative to an immediate sentence of imprisonment. Argument was put for a stringent community order or a suspended sentence of imprisonment coupled with appropriate punitive requirements. The defence also accepted that if a sentence of immediate imprisonment is the appropriate sentence a term of 56 days was not too long.

      Para. 16 states – “There are no applicable sentencing guidelines. We have been referred to no previous decided cases either in the Court of Appeal or at the Crown Court to assist in determining an appropriate sentence for this type of offence. “ However, there are guidelines for the offence under s.4A as read with Crime and Disorder act 1998 s.31 – see Page 87 of the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines.

      Delete
    2. The sentence went for appeal and was upheld. I am curious as to why bearing in mind the statement above. Did someone also mess up the appeal?

      Delete
    3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17562016

      Delete
  30. Mr Stacey's advocate would have done well to read ObiterJ's wise words before going to Crown Court with his/her client. All rather messy and unsatisfactory.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Public confidence in the system is likely to be reduced by this. But is that a factor that can be considered in sentencing decisions ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - Tony Frost, it can be considered. But it's a contentious issue and I'm sure some of my colleagues (not to mention some lawyers and legal advisers) would disagree with me!

      The five considerations when sentencing are:
      Punishment
      Reduction of Crime
      Reform and Rehabilitation
      Protection of the public
      Reparation

      I'd argue that pretty much any of these could include an element of 'what would the average man in the street think?'. But only an element - it's never the over-riding factor...

      So now we're into that thorny one asked by the trainer in my very first day training as a magistrate - 'what is justice?'

      Enough philosophy for now I think...

      And I agree fully with MCMRJP - if I was ever in trouble, I wouldn't want Mr Stacey's Advocate at my side!!!

      Delete
    2. 'The five considerations when sentencing are:
      Punishment
      Reduction of Crime
      Reform and Rehabilitation
      Protection of the public
      Reparation'

      Are you being serious? Prolific offenders are on a merry go round in our justice system. Rarely is there any sign that any of these five factors have been considered when they are sentenced. They carry on completely unimpeded adding more and more victims to their tally. What the average man in the street thinks is of no consequence whatsoever to those running our failing liberal justice system.

      Delete
    3. You can read this stuff everyday. Written by the man and woman on the street.

      http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/yet-again-magistrates-fail-to-protect.html

      Delete
    4. Brontosaurus - please don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. Some of us magistrates do actually live in the real world and when we're considering a sentence, the five considerations are the only thing we're thinking of. Have you ever actually sat at the back of a court, watched and listened and then read what the press report? Believe me, what's real and what's reported are two entirely different things...

      Delete
    5. Tim, I don't read that disgusting rag, which I do understand panders to peoples prejudices and bigotry. Your own bigotry and haughtiness assumes I am of that ilk because I have the temerity to disagree with you.
      My work gives me an insight into the justice system on a daily basis. At magistrates court, I rarely see prolific offenders given a sentence that appears to take any account of your five considerations.
      The fact is that the average man in the street believes the sentencing guidelines are a green light for prolific offenders to continue with their offending. They also understand that you cannot become a magistrate these days unless you follow the liberal premise that offenders are victims and need help and that is the real overiding consideration. Anyone who believes that punishment, reduction of crime, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public and reparation are the cornerstones of sentencing will never be allowed to become a magistrate.

      Delete
  32. It seems that the defendant was ill served by his Advocate. I only hope my two colleagues sitting with William J were not overawed and put their tuppence worth in. Still expected it to be reduced to community order though.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have just read the sentencing remarks in the Crown Court (Thank you ObiterJ for providing the link on your blog), and see now how the appeal failed. His advocate having stated that he (and presumably, by implication, his client) did not consider 56 days excessive, was left only with the argument that the sentence could have been suspended or substituted. When the court disagreed with that submission, there was nowhere else left to go but back to prison to serve the original sentence. Any appeal against sentence opens the option of the appeal court increasing the sentence, so nothing is actually gained by saying that the actual length of custodial sentence is not challenged, only its immediate implementation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Guardian reported that the CC judge "highlighted a penalty notice Stacey received in March last year for violent disorder. The incident had previously been overlooked and was not mentioned at Stacey's earlier sentencing".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's true, but the problem with this case is that it was prosecuted under the Public Order Act which was not meant to cover the internet.
      So the current offence was nothing like the offence for which he was given a penalty notice.

      Others have mentioned the difficulties about deciding whether a Twitter audience constitutes a crowd. Obviously the original law was meant to tackle crowd control, and that is not the same as a post on Twitter.

      So how can a twitter audience be an aggravating factor?
      That is very debatable, and it's something that needs to be urgently reviewed.

      It's no good randomly plucking sentences out of thin air without any real knowledgeable discussion about the nature of the offence.
      That is not justice.

      Delete
  35. I have looked at the Guidelines. They do not cover offences of this nature where the racial hatred remarks are published for the whole world to see. Also, if you read the judgment, the offender made several other vile and abusive remarks to those who challenged him. These could not be published in a newspaper or quoted in a broadcast news item. The DJ got it right and the appeal confirmed this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the guidelines do mention racial aggravation.

      The offender was responding in kind to "vile and abusive" remarks eg. he was responding to threats and racist abuse directed at *him*. That should be a mitigating factor eg. provocation.

      If you haven't seen the tweets, then how do you know that the DJ "got it right".

      The DJ, in my opinion, did not understand Twitter or the youth culture within it.

      Delete
  36. On reflection, I fear that I and many other contributors to this thread have been guilty of the reaction that we so deplore in others; without access to the full facts of the case, as presented by both sides, we have rushed to judge the DJ wrong-headed in his sentencing.
    I am also now inclined to wonder whether we are all drawn from the white middle class. What, I wonder, did black and other ethnic minority members make of the sentence when they read about it in the press. Have we, in other words, set aside all relevant prejudices in reacting to this case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh for God's sake!! Let's set up a focus group. Let's consult the community. Let's find a token black and other ethnic minority member and ask them. When did we stop being able to have a thought or opinion without becoming so anxious. No wonder the place is in such a mess.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear, have I upset you? What's that then - a reverse troll?

      Delete
  37. Let's keep it friendly, chaps - this isn't Twitter, you know!

    ReplyDelete
  38. As Obiter has pointed out, the Crown Court went wrong fundamentally in saying there were no applicable guidelines for the offence when there were. Those guidelines should have formed the starting point for consideration of the sentence, certainly they do not contemplate tweeting, but an aggravating feature mentioned is a large number of people in the vicinity, obviously even more so when a larger number might read the tweet. On the other hand there must be some mitigation in that the victim was not able to read them. It might even be that the court found it ought to go outside the guidelines in the interests of justice. It might have ended up at the same sentence, but it should have started from the guideline and explained what it was doing, which is the legal requirement placed on it. Instead the sentencing remarks state simply "We have reached the clear conclusion that a sentence of immediate imprisonment was justified in this case." without explaining the decision making process. That does not appear to be a lawful approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed (not Bystander)1 April 2012 at 23:55

      Well said, Chris. You in fact do know the law better than the judges who have ruled on this matter.

      Delete
    2. It seems unjust to punish someone with regard to how many times his remarks have been re-tweeted.
      Isn't that the responsibility of the people who re-tweeted them?

      The Muslim poppy burners' actions were televised and mentioned in the press, so who knows how many people saw that? That was clearly their intention, so should that have increased their £50 fine?

      Delete
  39. Well, it's not my country, but I think the criminalization of any speech that does not create an imminent threat of violence is entirely wrong. That does not mean that I justify or condone what Stacey said: I simply think it's very bad for the country to lock up people for what they say or how they say it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree.

      The European Commissioner for Human Rights said that the sentence is wrong and excessive.

      That is pretty shaming for those involved.

      Delete
  40. Welcome to modern day Britain. Where you can get thrown in jail for speech, but get continually released from court for more violent and distressing offences. Just as long as you don't commit those offences against certain privileged groups in society.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Payasoru - "I am also now inclined to wonder whether we are all drawn from the white middle class". Why is that always seen as being such a bad thing?

    On my bench (in the Midlands) there are openly gay men and women, black and Asian men and women, disabled men and women, poor and immensely rich, educated and not so well-educated, working and retired, Christian and staunchly Atheist, working middle and upper-class...

    I happen to be white and middle-class. And I don't feel any need to apologise for that fact. So please don't appear to apologise on my behalf...

    And yes, I have set aside my prejudices. As I was trained to. Have you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I hope that I have been able to leave my prejudices in the assembly room, where I too was a white middle class male, serving within a bench that accurately represented the social, ethinic, age and gender profile of the PSD (as it still was when I was appointed).
      What mainly concerned me about comments about this case, on this thread, was that we all seemed agreed that the DJ had patently got it wrong, although none of us has heard the evidence in the case.
      We usually react to contributors to this blog who accuse us of being too soft, by pointing out that the writer has not heard the evidence, only read press accounts.
      I'm simply musing that the words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' might spring to mind.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Payasoru for your erudite response!
      If you look at my post in reply to Brontosaurus above (April 1) you'll see I am well aware of the what the press is capable of in terms of skewing the facts to suit their own agenda. My point to you was that saying I (and indeed, we) are white and middle-class seems to be a bad thing. I'm not certain that it is. I'm perfectly capable of being white (I am), middle-class (probably) AND objective.
      56 days immediate custody strikes me as over-the-top. I'll say it again - scraping racist graffiti off the nearest subway for 200 hours would be much more appropriate...

      Delete
  42. I guess I'll plead guilty to expressing myself badly. I suspect we're pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet.
    If you have a look at my 31st March comment, two points are being made (a) I have now got more information, and (b) having sat on appeals to the CC in the past - I don't sit on anything now, apart from my terrace enjoying the Spanish sun - I can see why the 56 days was not altered. Once counsel for the appelant had said s/he was happy with 56 days, the court would only have altered the sentence to increase it. They were being asked to adjudicate a very restricted point: Did custody need to be immediate. The CC said, yes it did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And as I wrote earlier - I'm just glad he/she wasn't my defence counsel!!!!

      You are right of course - we agree.

      I have a very Left-wing friend who beats himself (and me) up about being white and middle-class (and male too). I refuse to be ashamed of these facts. Like being gay, black, disabled, Muslim ... or indeed any other label or pigeon-hole, I will not be defined by my colour, class or creed.

      So apologies for 'having a go' at you Payasoru - you just hit a nerve!

      Delete
    2. Payasoru, the CC had another option - to agree that a custodial sentence was unjust.

      I have seen the full transcript of the tweets, and I wonder why he ever pleaded guilty.

      The tweets are juvenile. An attempt at offensive humour, which is so popular among some of our "alternative" comedians.
      For instance, he tells a complete stranger that his dad is a "rapist".
      There is strong swearing, and that might shock an elderly middle class DJ, but it does not shock the young today.

      The tweets sent to him were far more worrying eg. threatening.

      This sort of case breeds resentment, and it will be compared to other cases/sentences, and questions of prejudice will be raised.
      This is already happening, in fact.

      For instance, the suspicion that Liam Stacey is in prison because he is white, because this case involved race, because it involved celebrity eg. the whole issue of Princess Diana-type emotion coming into play and affecting judgement.


      We also need to have DJs who look at the bigger picture eg. restorative justice, and how to solve racial tensions, rather than increase them!

      Liam Stacey is not going to come out of prison with a different attitude towards minorities. He will only learn to keep his mouth shut for the time being.

      Delete
  43. I really do feel this prosecution is misconceived. Firstly I do not believe that just because the words were extremely stupid and unpleasant (which is clear) that anyone was truly distressed or damaged by them, as opposed to mere outrage at the stupidity. If there was evidence somebody was genuinely distressed or harmed I might feel differently. Instead I feel that it was assumed without any basis that stupid words lacking in merit must be taken to have that effect, and any harm here is just outrage at what other people will think. This seems a careless assumption, and one shared by Stacey's solicitor.

    Then there is the issue that the distress people might feel is assumed to be worse for this kind of thing than for other crimes. But all crimes can be distressing to their victims, even for quite minor crimes. The difference is that for most crimes the victim has to suffer all the other harm (e.g. loss of property or physical injury) as well as the distress. It doesn't make much sense to me to treat distress alone as much more serious then distress combined with other harm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom, I think the Tabloid press share much of the blame for blowing this out of all proportion. They like to stir the pot.
      Sadly, the defence and the DJ appear to have been swept along by it too, believing the offence was extremely serious.

      It was not.
      It was a sick joke. No worse than jokes about, say, Margaret Thatcher's death.

      I've read the Tweets. There were two racist insults, but those were pretty tame. As for the rest, it was just a lot of silly swearing. Nothing that would distress or alarm, and he was responding in kind.

      It was clear that he wast attempting to be funny. He said so in the tweets. So there was no intent, as far as I can see.

      The DJ mentioned public outrage?
      What public outrage?
      The Tweets were not published, so how could anyone be outraged. It's clear he had read the tabloids and had been influenced by them.

      Delete
  44. 10 days to incarcerate a drunk nd 10 years to judge a murderer?
    something wrong here.

    ReplyDelete
  45. What are the chances this will go to court in the next few few days?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17594525

    ReplyDelete
  46. The armchair lawyers on this blog's comments are hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's have your detailed rebuttal then, so we shall all be better informed.

      Delete
    2. Ed (not Bystander)6 April 2012 at 15:22

      Instead of a proper lawyer spending ages trying to ejumacate you, Tom, why don't you borrow from the library (or find on t'internet) a book on English legal method, and read the chapter on legal interpretation. Focus on "findings of law", and "findings of fact".

      Delete
    3. I have a reasonable understanding of those concepts, but again I don't see what point you're trying to make. I can't see any finding in the judgment about any harm caused to anyone, and in any case there was no trial or Newton hearing to find any facts. To the extent that Stacey's solicitor conceded that he deserved significant punishment, I am as critical of him as I am of the court.

      Delete
    4. Ed (not Bystander)7 April 2012 at 15:01

      You claim you have a reasonable understanding of those concepts. You are wrong. Read the statute, and the elements of the offence. You keep referring to "harm", which is not part of the offence.

      Delete
    5. I'm talking about sentencing severity though and it is clearly relevant to that. I'm also partly giving my personal opinion that the prosecutionw as unnecessary, which does not necessarily amount to a claim he is technically innocent.

      Delete
    6. Ed, "offensiveness" is not part of the offence either, but the Judge justified the sentence by saying that the remarks were "extremely offensive".

      So it seems he was sentenced for being offensive.

      There was so much wrong with this case. I'm glad it has been brought to the public eye so that everyone is now aware of how arbitrary and unjust the system can be.

      Delete
    7. Ed (not Bystander)26 April 2012 at 16:59

      So the "offensiveness" was referred to in the sentencing remarks. Does that appear in the guidelines for the offence?

      Delete
  47. Seems spot on to the guidelines at p42.
    entry point is 6wks (or 42days) and the racial element would push that up considerable.
    52days is therefore spot on the guidelines for this offence.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Page 42 is the wrong offence, Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.