Pretty unusual life sentence handed, any thoughts?

Watch
jonnielovely
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
She is 100% evil for sure, but life sentence in such crimes have never been seen.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19...laiming-raped/
0
reply
GabiAbi84
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
I will say that the spin on the article is rather bizarre. About a third of the word count used up by reiterating the defence “mitigation” saying how she lost her career etc...
guaranteed if this had been an actual case of stalking/harassment/rape /assault etc they would not be making any mention of how he had lost his career.
She is in the wrong-why are they giving her/her lawyer so much space to claim that she had reasons and she can’t really be blamed for it all?

But as for the sentence itself then absolutely. Life never actually means life though-especially when it says a discretionary life sentence so I wonder how much time she’ll actually have to serve.
Last edited by GabiAbi84; 8 months ago
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 8 months ago
#3
Well I never...a UK court decision I agree with!

If it can be proven that you are deliberately and falsely trying to accuse somebody of rape I think that warrants a life sentence.
2
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 8 months ago
#4
I agree with both the sentence passed and the sentencing precedent for future convicted defendants in very similar cases.
I hope that she will also be held liable for the costs of prosecuting her crime spree and subject to harsh enforcement proceedings.

Her QCs "she is clearly a manipulative woman" quote is chillingly accurate; as evidenced in the courtroom by the horrifying felon's final devious attempts to evoke the Judge's sympathy via a sympathetic portrayal during mitigation in relation to the defendant's academic devotion, religion and ruined ambitions within the legal profession.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 8 months ago
#5
sounds like the judge was pissed :laugh:

well she would have been convicted of perverting the course of justice which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

'the offence is committed where a person:
  • does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient);
  • which has a tendency to pervert; and
  • which is intended to pervert the course of public justice.'

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...verting-course

indeed probably not common to give out the maximum sentence for this, but this woman's crime and the lengths she went to to get her trial for harassment stayed or whatever including staging her own kidnapping and trying to frame her ex lover smh. she is a menace to society to say the least.
2
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 8 months ago
#6
Sentence wrong in principle. The judge is looking at protecting the victim when the defendant is let out. That should be approached through an injunction rather than revoking her life licence.

Even the length of time she must serve is excessive. She pleaded guilty and was told she must serve nearly 5 years. To work the “normal” non-life sentence she would have received add back the 1/3 discount for “guilty” and double it. That is nearly 14 years. Far too long.

A 4 year determinate sentence would have been long enough. When she is let out in two years, either she will forget him or the replacement for an ASBO will manage her in the the future.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 8 months ago
#7
Meh i see no issue here, the woman tried to destroy someones life (a decision that could well have ended up in him committing suicide as plenty do in such situations) letting her rot for it seems an apt decision by the judge.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 8 months ago
#8
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Sentence wrong in principle. The judge is looking at protecting the victim when the defendant is let out. That should be approached through an injunction rather than revoking her life licence.

Even the length of time she must serve is excessive. She pleaded guilty and was told she must serve nearly 5 years. To work the “normal” non-life sentence she would have received add back the 1/3 discount for “guilty” and double it. That is nearly 14 years. Far too long.

A 4 year determinate sentence would have been long enough. When she is let out in two years, either she will forget him or the replacement for an ASBO will manage her in the the future.
Might one ask why you think she deserves such a lenient sentence as opposed to this one? 4 years for trying to destroy someone due to the poor darlings ego being bruised seems overly lenient considering the spectacular damage she caused.
0
reply
jonnielovely
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#9
(Original post by Napp)
Might one ask why you think she deserves such a lenient sentence as opposed to this one? 4 years for trying to destroy someone due to the poor darlings ego being bruised seems overly lenient considering the spectacular damage she caused.
I have no problem with the tariff. My argument is that she do not deserve a life sentence. Look at Jemma Beale and car beech they don’t get life either
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 8 months ago
#10
(Original post by jonnielovely)
I have no problem with the tariff. My argument is that she do not deserve a life sentence. Look at Jemma Beale and car beech they don’t get life either
In fairness this 'life' doesnt mean life in any literal nor meaningful sense..
Who are they sorry? Either way, i am wary of treating cases identically simply because of the same charge, every one has nuances that should be accounted for and in this case the sheer effort she put in to try and destroy, if not kill, this man merits the harshest of punishments. False rape accusations being, as the judge said, evil.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 8 months ago
#11
(Original post by Napp)
Might one ask why you think she deserves such a lenient sentence as opposed to this one? 4 years for trying to destroy someone due to the poor darlings ego being bruised seems overly lenient considering the spectacular damage she caused.
There are no formal sentencing guidelines for attempting to pervert the course of justice but this article from a firm of solicitors gives some idea of the range of sentences

https://www.stoneking.co.uk/literatu...course-justice

The case of Webb referred to eventually resulted in a sentence of 15 months imprisonment including a small discount for a late guilty plea.

The sentence in the present case is clearly out of line.

The case below was a 4 year sentence (raised to that on a prosecution appeal)

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...ient-sentence/

Heather Hallett in a bad mood.

I am only aware of two longer perverting the course of justice sentences

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...-past-11882676

(another prosecution appeal with Heather Hallett again the lead judge in the Court of Appeal)

and

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/forma...EWCA)+AND+(665)

(Heather Hallett again, this time on a defence appeal. The appealed failed (just). The sentence handed down was 10 years and one of the several victims spent 2 3/4 years in prison for a crime that never occurred).
Last edited by nulli tertius; 8 months ago
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 8 months ago
#12
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Sentence wrong in principle. The judge is looking at protecting the victim when the defendant is let out. That should be approached through an injunction rather than revoking her life licence.

Even the length of time she must serve is excessive. She pleaded guilty and was told she must serve nearly 5 years. To work the “normal” non-life sentence she would have received add back the 1/3 discount for “guilty” and double it. That is nearly 14 years. Far too long.

A 4 year determinate sentence would have been long enough. When she is let out in two years, either she will forget him or the replacement for an ASBO will manage her in the the future.
Do you really believe that the judge's ultimate motivation and priority when passing sentence was to protect that one specific victim Mr IM? :confused:
I don't.
I think that the sentencing decision involved a combination of the: punitive, deterrent precedent and public protection elements.
0
reply
jonnielovely
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#13
(Original post by londonmyst)
Do you really believe that the judge's ultimate motivation and priority when passing sentence was to protect that one specific victim Mr IM? :confused:
I don't.
I think that the sentencing decision involved a combination of the: punitive, deterrent precedent and public protection elements.
If punishment needs to fit the crimes, crimes needs to be deterred and public needs to be protected (some of the aims of CJA 2003)

Then all crimes (indictable or summary) should carry maximum life sentence for the following reasons

1- A person can commit the same crime for multiple times and to a grave magnitude.

2- Public can be killed or serious injured in all crimes, no matter how remote the possbility.

Here I explain what I mean.

Use Burglary as an example. I can steal 10 rich people homes, steal bunch of COVID vaccine and ventilator in 10 hospitals, or more extreme steal uranium in 10 nuclear power stations.

Arson is a crime which can carry life sentence- The official name is "Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"

Take "Arson/Criminal damage" out of the offence name than "(Offence Name) with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"

I can replace it with Theft/ burglary/ Riot/ Fly tipping/ Harressment/ Malicious communications to the extent that life can be endangered.

Theft of covid meds or uranium can surely cause serious harm or kill someone.

Riot is certain violence and someone can be serious harmed and killed as a result.

Flytipping can cause a epidemic and someone can be killed as a result of being infected.

Malicious communications- If I say someone grossly offensive and as a result someone killed themselves should I face a life sentence?

All crimes if you think creative enough then you can find a way that life being endangered and therefore able to receive a life sentence
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 8 months ago
#14
(Original post by londonmyst)
Do you really believe that the judge's ultimate motivation and priority when passing sentence was to protect that one specific victim Mr IM? :confused:
I don't.
I think that the sentencing decision involved a combination of the: punitive, deterrent precedent and public protection elements.
Yes I do. The sentence is incomprehensible ottherwise.

With the current sentencing regime, discretionary life sentences are vanishingly rare. The Court of Appeal confirmed in 2013 that the power to do hadn't been abolished in 2000 but I can find only one such sentence imposed since then, an importer of military pistols and sub-machine gun who was sentenced in 2019.

Obviously murderers attract mandatory life sentences
.
Then there are two groups that attract "automatic" life sentences but where the court has get out clauses. The first are the repeat "scheduled" offenders most of whom are the repeat sexual offenders but it also includes those who repeatedly commit wounding/GBH with intent. There are fewer get out clauses for the repeat scheduled offenders. Secondly, there are the "dangerous" offenders. That includes the attempted murderers, manslaughters on the grounds of diminished responsibility, terrorists, rapists (usually multiple rapists) and arsonists who, along with the repeat offenders I've mentioned, made up the bulk of the old pre-2000 discretionary lifers.

So who are left in the class of discretionary lifers?

  • People newly convicted of offences committed before the automatic lifer provisions came in.
  • Re-sentenced repatriated prisoners convicted abroad who received a discretionary life sentence abroad.
  • People like this defendant who are not "dangerous" and haven't commited a scheduled offence but have commited an offence carrying life imprisonment.

There are a few of the first group, I think including some of the Oxford sexual groomers. I am aware of one in the second group and I am aware of two, the arms smuggler and this woman, in the third group. That is two in this third group in 20 years.

The only rational but not lawful basis for this sentence is to try to create a mechanism to protect the victim.

There will obviously be an appeal and we will see what the Court of Appeal says.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 8 months ago
#15
(Original post by jonnielovely)
If punishment needs to fit the crimes, crimes needs to be deterred and public needs to be protected (some of the aims of CJA 2003)

Then all crimes (indictable or summary) should carry maximum life sentence for the following reasons

1- A person can commit the same crime for multiple times and to a grave magnitude.

2- Public can be killed or serious injured in all crimes, no matter how remote the possbility.

Here I explain what I mean.

Use Burglary as an example. I can steal 10 rich people homes, steal bunch of COVID vaccine and ventilator in 10 hospitals, or more extreme steal uranium in 10 nuclear power stations.

Arson is a crime which can carry life sentence- The official name is "Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"

Take "Arson/Criminal damage" out of the offence name than "(Offence Name) with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"

I can replace it with Theft/ burglary/ Riot/ Fly tipping/ Harressment/ Malicious communications to the extent that life can be endangered.

Theft of covid meds or uranium can surely cause serious harm or kill someone.

Riot is certain violence and someone can be serious harmed and killed as a result.

Flytipping can cause a epidemic and someone can be killed as a result of being infected.

Malicious communications- If I say someone grossly offensive and as a result someone killed themselves should I face a life sentence?

All crimes if you think creative enough then you can find a way that life being endangered and therefore able to receive a life sentence
Arson, but not other forms of criminal damage, carries a life sentence without any intent to endanger life. Since the beginning of the 20th century it has been the only offence which is not an offence to the person that has attracted significant numbers of life sentences. It is currently one of the "dangerous" offences that attract an automatic life sentence (subject to many exceptions).

This man got llife for arson of a barn in 1970. In 1993 following a campaign to release him involving all the usual suspects, he was in a programme towards release. As part of that he was on day release friom prison. He went straight round to the same barn and set fire to it again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-1391981.html
(ignore the date on the report)
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 8 months ago
#16
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Sentence wrong in principle. The judge is looking at protecting the victim when the defendant is let out. That should be approached through an injunction rather than revoking her life licence.

Even the length of time she must serve is excessive. She pleaded guilty and was told she must serve nearly 5 years. To work the “normal” non-life sentence she would have received add back the 1/3 discount for “guilty” and double it. That is nearly 14 years. Far too long.

A 4 year determinate sentence would have been long enough. When she is let out in two years, either she will forget him or the replacement for an ASBO will manage her in the the future.
I disagree with much of your analysis above on the sentencing approach generally, but to start with, how do you get to a starting tariff pre-credit of 14 years here? She got a minimum term of 4 years 6 months. Even if she pleaded at the earliest opportunity that’s 1/3 discount from a minimum term post-trial (i.e. had she not pleaded) of 82 months (6 years 10 months). You don’t double that figure. Plus the starting point for calculating the minimum term may have been lower than 82 months if she didn’t plead at the earliest opportunity, and therefore the resulting tariff of 4 years 10 months was after the application of a lesser percentage of credit.
1
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 8 months ago
#17
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Arson, but not other forms of criminal damage, carries a life sentence without any intent to endanger life. Since the beginning of the 20th century it has been the only offence which is not an offence to the person that has attracted significant numbers of life sentences. It is currently one of the "dangerous" offences that attract an automatic life sentence (subject to many exceptions).

This man got llife for arson of a barn in 1970. In 1993 following a campaign to release him involving all the usual suspects, he was in a programme towards release. As part of that he was on day release friom prison. He went straight round to the same barn and set fire to it again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-1391981.html
(ignore the date on the report)
Firstly, it is important not to conflate “carrying a life sentence” (which suggests this is the only available sentencing outcome) with “being an offence the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment”. You obviously know this, but the way you are writing suggests convicted arsonists will get life, which obviously isn’t right. The only crime carrying a mandatory life sentence is murder. Tried summarily the maximum for arson is 6 months, so it is capable of being dealt with as something pretty minor, if the facts suggest that. By contrast if the facts do suggest the arsonist intended to endanger life, it will usually be charged as aggravated arson to give the judge greater sentencing latitude on conviction.

Secondly, your comment that arson has been the only offence that is not an offence against the person for which a large number of life sentences have been passed. I would be interested to know where this comes from. What about terrorism offences and serious child sexual offences?

Thirdly, you suggested earlier that this woman’s behaviour could be appropriately managed through a CBO rather than a life sentence. Obviously we didn’t sit through the trial and hear all the evidence, so it’s hard to be too definitive. But one aspect of the CBO is it has to actually have some prospect of working. This woman harassed her victim to such an extent that she was charged with that offence, and then in the lead up to that trial, made further false rape allegations and arranged for her friend to stab her in the leg in order to frame her victim. That does not suggest to me that this woman has any regard whatsoever for orders of the court, or the law in general. Frankly, she doesn’t sound well. But in any event a CBO wouldn’t have been worth the paper it was written on, and given the seriousness of the offending, that just wouldn’t have been up for discussion. To be fair to you, I was initially surprised about the life sentence too, particularly given the relatively light minimum term. But the more I think about it, the more I realise there was no other option that would adequately address the seriousness of this particular set of offences, the genuine threat she could pose to any person in future, and her disregard for the legal process.
Last edited by legalhelp; 8 months ago
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 8 months ago
#18
(Original post by jonnielovely)
If punishment needs to fit the crimes, crimes needs to be deterred and public needs to be protected (some of the aims of CJA 2003)

Then all crimes (indictable or summary) should carry maximum life sentence for the following reasons

1- A person can commit the same crime for multiple times and to a grave magnitude.

2- Public can be killed or serious injured in all crimes, no matter how remote the possbility.

Here I explain what I mean.

Use Burglary as an example. I can steal 10 rich people homes, steal bunch of COVID vaccine and ventilator in 10 hospitals, or more extreme steal uranium in 10 nuclear power stations.

Arson is a crime which can carry life sentence- The official name is "Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"

Take "Arson/Criminal damage" out of the offence name than "(Offence Name) with intent to endanger life or reckless as to whether life endangered"

I can replace it with Theft/ burglary/ Riot/ Fly tipping/ Harressment/ Malicious communications to the extent that life can be endangered.

Theft of covid meds or uranium can surely cause serious harm or kill someone.

Riot is certain violence and someone can be serious harmed and killed as a result.

Flytipping can cause a epidemic and someone can be killed as a result of being infected.

Malicious communications- If I say someone grossly offensive and as a result someone killed themselves should I face a life sentence?

All crimes if you think creative enough then you can find a way that life being endangered and therefore able to receive a life sentence
Sigh...there’s a lot of bad law here.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 8 months ago
#19
(Original post by legalhelp)
I disagree with much of your analysis above on the sentencing approach generally, but to start with, how do you get to a starting tariff pre-credit of 14 years here? She got a minimum term of 4 years 6 months. Even if she pleaded at the earliest opportunity that’s 1/3 discount from a minimum term post-trial (i.e. had she not pleaded) of 82 months (6 years 10 months). You don’t double that figure. Plus the starting point for calculating the minimum term may have been lower than 82 months if she didn’t plead at the earliest opportunity, and therefore the resulting tariff of 4 years 10 months was after the application of a lesser percentage of credit.
Read R v Sczerba [2002]EWCA Crim 440 (the recent changes of approach discussed here https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk...of-the-notiona have no application to the sentence we are discussing)

So a determinate sentence on a not guilty plea of 13 years 8 months will produce a tariff of 6 years 10 months. I agree I have assumed an early guilty plea and full credit which will reduce 6 years 10 months to a tariff of 4 years 6 months.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 8 months ago
#20
She's clearly in need of intensive therapy, she has very serious difficulties with anger management and with feeling wronged by him to the point of obsession. It's not so unusual for married men to falsify their status when seeking relationships with (especially) younger women and she was rightly angry about that, but has taken her vengeance much too far. It's distressing that she is a well qualified, well paid professional and I think that has a bearing.

Nonetheless, a life sentence (whatever that means in reality) is wildly over the top. Many people who kill others get less. The other day there was a community sentence given to a man who was speeding like hell down a suburban road in Coventry and killed a little girl. The law is being brought into serious disrepute by handing out such contradictory and whimsical sentences.

She plainly is a case for electronic tagging and supervision, an injunction to have no dealings with this man (with the threat of imprisonment if she breaks the order) and some kind of proper therapy.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever considered or are you currently considering an apprenticeship?

Yes, I am actively considering an apprenticeship (51)
12.2%
I am actively considering an alternative to uni that isn't an apprenticeship (8)
1.91%
I have considered an apprenticeship but it's not for me (106)
25.36%
I am considering a degree apprenticeship (38)
9.09%
I haven't considered an apprenticeship (200)
47.85%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (15)
3.59%

Watched Threads

View All