Friday, May 02, 2014

Clarity

At first sight the eight year sentence passed on Max Clifford  looks a bit on the steep side, but the judge's closely argued sentencing remarks here set out clearly the reasoning process that led to the sentence.

The practice of releasing sentencing remarks on the Internet as soon as possible is an excellent way to de-mystify a sentencing process that can be opaque to the public.

15 comments:

  1. Agreed.

    One slight warning I would give is that sometimes the sentencing remarks say more about the crime than newspapers do. I have on occasion read some which have shocked and sickened me, and I do not consider myself especially prone to such reactions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Buster Gasket2 May 2014 at 18:28

    Thank you for posting this. What a thoroughly despicable character Hastings has legally been proven to be. Instinctively I was always repelled by him, and now know those instincts were entirely correct.

    Where do we lay people directly access other sentencing remarks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hastings??? Shome mishtake shurely?

      You can find sentencing remarks for bigger cases on Google. Just go for 'Sentencing Remarks' and the defendant's name.

      Delete
  3. The thing I'm curious about is why Mr Clifford wasn't kept in custody after being convicted but before sentencing. It seems a custodial sentence was much more likely than not so why let him go home?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Much as Max Clifford is not a reputable character, I have to say I get worried at an 8 year sentence for offences of over 30 years ago. How can justice be done when it is all based on people's memories ? Why did the women who were assaulted not complain at the time or shortly afterwards when the events were fresh in memory ?
    I have to say I see the word "compensation" here. Is this what has driven the whole process ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We weren't in the court room and didn't hear the evidence, so I think it is dangerous to start second guessing the jury.

      Delete
    2. "Why did the women who were assaulted not complain at the time or shortly afterwards when the events were fresh in memory ?".

      If you read the sentencing remarks I think you will find the answer to your question. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf

      Delete
  5. How regularly are sentences made consecutive as opposed to concurrent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My understanding is that you should get consecutive sentences if you commit multiple criminal acts that just happen to be tried together and concurrent sentences if you commit a single criminal act that breaks multiple laws. This case is a good example of that, since it contains a combination.

      It seems that not all judges understand that principle, though. Stuart Hall was originally given concurrent sentences for crimes committed years apart with completely different victims. There is no way they were part of the same criminal act. This was partially corrected at appeal, but I still don't understand the decision not to have almost all the sentences in that case consecutive.

      Delete
  6. I am concerned that the judge seems to have taken into account events involving a girl of 12 out of the country at a time when there was no jurisdiction in English law to try them here. I don't think he should have done. Mr Clifford was not on trial for that act.

    And in the round and considering totality eight for a man of that age is just too much. I hope the Court of Appeal cuts it down to five.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget, he will only serve four of those eight years behind bars.

      Delete
  7. I think there may be some material here that might lead the Court of Appeal to take a different view of the sentence (although they might fear the 'backlash' that a reduced sentence could cause, and this may possibly deter them from disturbing the original sentence).

    There was some talk also of an appeal against conviction, but that would depend on a forensic examination of the judge's summing-up to the jury. It is a much higher hurdle to surmount.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the judge went far too far relating things to what might have happened under the new law- looks like he has been hammered unlawfully and I reckon he will get it reduced on appeal

    ReplyDelete
  9. As at 14 May 2014 the link to the remarks is broken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I have no idea why and I will look into it when I get back from court this evening.

      Delete

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.