FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

stuart hall

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

15 months???? How disgusting is that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

[Removed by poster at 17/06/13 13:30:09]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

It's in line with current sentencing tariffs....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lentyoffun40Couple
over a year ago

Lancashire

It does stink

However at least he has been found out

His career is over and all he will be known as now is that perv from tv

Good riddance

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s.

i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"15 months???? How disgusting is that"

you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s.

i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged."

sorry but I dont agree say that to the poor kid whos no longer a kid just a fooked up head na no matter how long its still not engh

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s.

i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged."

Sorry dont agree at all 15 months is noo way long enough makes me so mad

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s.

i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged.

Sorry dont agree at all 15 months is noo way long enough makes me so mad"

brains an legz what more could I ask lol x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

a month for every child he grope at

PATHETIC law

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

Just as a matter of interest, what sentence would the ones that disagree with his 15 months give him?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

It seems a remarkably short sentence for such a crime. If we compare it to the sentences handed out to Chris Huhne and wife for what was arguably a victimless crime (I don't condone what they did), less than twice their sentence would seem to make a mockery of justice.

As for 'what would I have sentenced him to?'. I reckon 4 years. Out in two and the rest of his life under supervision and on SOR.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just as a matter of interest, what sentence would the ones that disagree with his 15 months give him?"

simply an I really really really really mean this shoot the cunt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"15 months???? How disgusting is that

you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil "

what would you do in those 5 minutes..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"15 months???? How disgusting is that

you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil

what would you do in those 5 minutes.."

look up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville


"Just as a matter of interest, what sentence would the ones that disagree with his 15 months give him?

simply an I really really really really mean this shoot the cunt "
Wow

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Seen longer sentences for Shoplifting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"15 months???? How disgusting is that

you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil

what would you do in those 5 minutes..

look up"

and that would make you a muderer yes..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?"

meaning ?????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

he get less the time he serve,

the justice system really is bad an very much out dated

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lentyoffun40Couple
over a year ago

Lancashire

All these people saying give me 5 minutes with him

Brings a whole new meaning to

"its a knockout "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lentyoffun40Couple
over a year ago

Lancashire

All these people saying give me 5 minutes with him

Brings a whole new meaning to

"its a knockout "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ire_bladeMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"15 months???? How disgusting is that

you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil

what would you do in those 5 minutes..

look up

and that would make you a muderer yes..?

"

if it was my little girl he touched yep with pleasure an il gladly do the what is it 8 years for it werth every second

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i never liked him much when he was on telly in the 70s.

i detest people who abuse women, especialy children, but seeing how old he is i think 15 months is long enough and that he has been punished in a way by his good name and reputation being damaged."

What has his age got to do with it. He may be in his 80s but he's still a paedophile. His sentence shouldn't be anything to do with his age.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Our justice system is crap. 15 months? Some are saying that's enough time? Dont think so. If it was you or your kids it would not seem right. If it was in the USA he would be looking at life. I know they dont get it right all the time but agree with them on stuff like that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?

meaning ?????"

1) It's one of those idle threats people make when they know it's never going to happen.

2) People likely and able to engage in genuine violence seldom announce their intentions in advance. It's seldom more than talk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Our justice system is crap. 15 months? Some are saying that's enough time? Dont think so. If it was you or your kids it would not seem right. If it was in the USA he would be looking at life. I know they dont get it right all the time but agree with them on stuff like that. "

Our justice system isn't the same as the US justice system. They don't actually get life sentences as far as I'm aware, they get a number of years, some into the hundreds.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lentyoffun40Couple
over a year ago

Lancashire

But we aren't in the USA

We are in the uk

We are the ones that vote in the governments who in turn make policy

Perhaps you should lobby your local mp about reform !

Either that or sit here moaning about how shit the justice system is!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Is that all he got? So I guess he will be walking free in about 6 months then?

Disgusting!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some people are born evil, never learn and do horrible things over and over again to people even if punished. I have first hand experience of it. The best we can do is lock them away as long as possible so they don't represent a danger to any one ever again. I suspect the judge took a view that he's too old to be a danger to anyone. His shame at being exposed will probably be enough. I imagine he is going to find life in prison on the sex offenders wing at his age pretty harsh and may finish him off if he is lucky.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

its something that happens a lot more often than you now about, i think it was only because of the jimmy saville case that encouraged people to report the crimes, at least he was found guilty which is good.

before the 1980s when esther rantzen spoke about it on thats life people usualy kept quiet about it, it was the first time i had heard of it myself.

stuart hall has got a bad heart so he might not be around much longer anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"15 months???? How disgusting is that

you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil

what would you do in those 5 minutes..

look up

and that would make you a muderer yes..?

if it was my little girl he touched yep with pleasure an il gladly do the what is it 8 years for it werth every second "

so your banged up, poss lose your house as your jobs gone and the person who most needs your support is miles away..

how does that help the child..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ezebelWoman
over a year ago

North of The Wall - youll need your vest

Ive removed some posts and those quoting.

All talk or not its probably not a good idea to be making those sorts of comments on a public forum.

Passions riding high but use a bit of common sense folks!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


" ........so your banged up, poss lose your house as your jobs gone and the person who most needs your support is miles away..

how does that help the child.."

It's not about helping the child. It's about trying to compensate for would-be avenger's inability to do anything constructive + the whole 'macho' nonsense men feel the need to demonstrate in such circumstances.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 17/06/13 14:50:06]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just got back from seeing the van carting him away from prison.

should have been longer than 15 months

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Just got back from seeing the van carting him away from prison.

should have been longer than 15 months

"

You actually went to the court to see him being taken away to prison?......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’ve no compassion towards him and yes I agree on the face of it 15 month does seem lenient….

But I wonder if having spent a life in the public eye where he was mostly celebrated for his work, he might now be living in fear of release after such a short time knowing the public condemnation he will receive and the ever-present hatred now aimed towards him will not stop until he dies..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think castration is the required punishment for these kind of crimes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Not long enough

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

His sentence takes in to account the fact that at the time the offences were committed the maximum sentance was 2 years. Presumably it is then less than the maximum for pleading guilty. It will be interesting to see if their is any the precedent for sentencing to be in line with the punishment at the time of the offence rather than the time of conviction. Unsurprisingly the Attorney General has already been approached to review whether the sentence is unduly lenient.

I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think castration is the required punishment for these kind of crimes"

I don't think at his age castration would be much of punishment unless it was carried out using a rusty carving knife dipped in flesh eating bacteria by a man with a shaky hand and bad eye-sight.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"I think castration is the required punishment for these kind of crimes"

I should think that at the ripe old age of 83 castration would be a pointless punishment.....

It would be akin to taking a driving license off of a blind man.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing."

All the reasons why he should be locked up. He didnt think of his victims ability to cope with life and the future did he?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtyNurse999Woman
over a year ago

Fabville !!!

That sentence stinks. No justice for the victims too little too late

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

15 Months is a disgracefully short sentence for a man who got away with his crimes for many years and whose crimes only came to light at the end of his life. His actions would have affected his victims lives, and for that he should not see the outside of the prison walls again.

Hash some may say, but we aren't harsh enough on sex criminals in my opinion

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I feel for the abused and there family's 15mnths absolute joke feel so sad

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?"

Bluster, bravado, machismo, bullshitters all spout the "give me five minutes" bollocks when they disagree with the judiciary etc.

Quite amusing really.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?

Bluster, bravado, machismo, bullshitters all spout the "give me five minutes" bollocks when they disagree with the judiciary etc.

Quite amusing really. "

Often makes me wonder just what is lacking in their lives for them to feel the need to try and asset their masculinity in such a way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"How long are we going to have to put up with this 'give me five minutes' nonsense?

Bluster, bravado, machismo, bullshitters all spout the "give me five minutes" bollocks when they disagree with the judiciary etc.

Quite amusing really. "

I concur.......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allDarkFoxForYouMan
over a year ago

Winchester/London


"His sentence takes in to account the fact that at the time the offences were committed the maximum sentance was 2 years. Presumably it is then less than the maximum for pleading guilty. It will be interesting to see if their is any the precedent for sentencing to be in line with the punishment at the time of the offence rather than the time of conviction. Unsurprisingly the Attorney General has already been approached to review whether the sentence is unduly lenient.

I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another thread that caters for the boot hill blood lust brigade ...i despair at the inhumanity of vast swathes of our society pumped up by the right wing media ..and i think halls sentence is lenient ...if we are to prosper as a society there must be a change of conciousness ..love tolerance and the rehabilitation of criminals should be our collective remit not cutting peoples ball off or stringing them up ..and i am not an apologist for sex criminals

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He actually got sentenced to 84 months or 7 years which is quite realistic, however because all the sentences were concurrent instead of consecutive it boils down to 15 months, which is just wrong. He could be out in what? 5 months. Not to belittle it in any way but his offences do seem to be indecent assault rather than rape. It is still very wrong but could have been worse.

From Court News...

It is not necessary for the Defendant to stand while sentence is pronounced.

Stuart Hall – you fall to be sentenced by this court for 14 counts of indecent assault to which you pleaded guilty at a hearing in April. The offences were committed over a period of nearly 20 years, the first being in 1967, the last in 1985 or 1986.

Facts

The facts of this case have been opened in considerable detail by the prosecution and I do not propose to repeat all of those details now or to refer in these remarks to any of your victims by name in order to preserve their anonymity, because these remarks will be made available for the media and the public immediately after I have pronounced sentence.

However the offences range in seriousness and it is appropriate for me to place them into their proper perspective, particularly in view of some of the reporting of this case and comments on it. You have pleaded guilty to 14 counts of indecent assaults each of which refers to one specific incident only. There are 13 victims whose ages at the time of the offences range from 9 to 17. One victim who was aged 15 is the subject of two charges (Counts 10 and 11). Three of the charges, Counts 12, 13 and 14 relate to one incident which took place in your home and involved children who were aged 11, 13 and 14.

The least serious offences are those reflected in Counts 2 to 4 of the indictment. In each case the girl concerned was 16 or 17 at the time. Each involved touching over clothing, in the case of Count 2 grabbing and fondling over clothing and delivering an unwanted kiss, and Counts 3 and 4 touching breasts over clothing. Count 1 was more serious and involved touching the vagina of a 16 year old girl over her underclothing, with a degree of planning and you plied her with alcohol.

Count 6 was significantly more serious. It involved a 13 year old girl who was subjected to a series of sexual indignities at your hands at her home on Boxing Day 1976. The victim had been drinking and was sick and you took advantage of the situation when she was in the bathroom and bathing to touch her naked breasts, inserted a finger in her vagina and kissed her upper body and touched her all over.

Counts 10 and 11 involved a girl who was 15 who you met in your role as a television presenter. She was indecently assaulted by your sexually kissing her in her home on one occasion and on another occasion at the BBC studio when she was in her bra and knickers you took her to a settee, lay next to her and asked to use an object to massage her vagina. There is an abuse of trust element in these offences.

Counts 12, 13 and 14 are serious because they involved 3 children at your home on the same occasion, ostensibly attending for elocution lessons. No doubt the parents of these children were pleased that such a person as yourself was offering elocution lessons to them, and you breached the trust they placed in you by assaulting their children for your own gratification. You persuaded the children to use the bathroom together and then they came to the lounge where you were dressed only in underpants. The assaults themselves were not of the most grave kind but the abuse of trust is serious and it appears that you set up the circumstances to enable these offences to take place.

Count 15 involved a 10 year old child who was at your home. The assault was minor, amounting to no more than mild touching, in circumstances of indecency, but the serious aspect is that the child was so young. Furthermore this was an incident which undoubtedly caused the victim real distress and lasting emotional problems.

Count 16 involved the youngest child, aged 9. You were a dinner guest at her parents’ home and whilst reading her a bedtime story you took the opportunity to put your hand under her bedclothes and onto her leg moving it towards her vagina. Again, although the incident itself is of minor indecency, the age of the child and the abuse of trust render this more serious.

Count 17 involved a 13 year old girl who was a passenger in your car and whom you forcibly kissed putting your tongue in her mouth.

Finally Count 18 involved a little girl aged 10 or 11 to whom you were supposedly to give an elocution lesson – this elocution lesson involved, somewhat unusually people may think, the child being taken into a bathroom and being dressed in her vest and knickers which she refused to take them off for you, and you measured her chest over her clothing with a tape measure.

Although I agree with the submission made by your counsel that some of these incidents taken alone do not cross the custody threshold, some of them do - either because of the age of the child concerned, or the nature of the indecent act and in the case of Counts 12, 13 and 14 because 3 children were involved.

Further although individually a charge may not call for a custodial sentence the cumulative effect of your offending must be taken into account in determining whether a custodial sentence is called for.

The court has been provided with statements from some of victims, which indicate in clear terms what they have suffered as a result of your offending. It is not appropriate for them to be read aloud in a public court. The authors of those statements can however rest assured that I have read and taken account of them all. Some of them make the point that these were not opportunistic offences and I agree – there was a degree of planning and premeditation in respect of some of the offences.

There are no Guidelines specifically applicable to these particular offences. The Sexual Offences Guidelines only apply to offences charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but there is assistance to be derived from the principles set out in those Guidelines. Further it is important to note the maximum sentence available when these offences were committed by you. I have considered with care the judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on the correct approach to sentencing for historic cases in the case of R v H and others [2011] EWCA Crim 2753.

For most of these offences the maximum sentence at the time and which the court must have regard to was 2 years imprisonment, and for the remainder it was 5 years. The maximum sentence for this type of offence has been significantly increased, since these offences were committed, to 10 years.

Considering the current Sentencing Council Guidelines for sexual offences, and the reported cases to which I have been referred, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Taken individually some of the offences do not cross the custody threshold

2. However several of the offences, in my judgement more than your counsel has submitted, do cross the custody threshold, and those in each of Counts 6, 15 and 16 do so significantly because of their facts and the ages of the children involved.

3. Taken together the cumulative result of your offending is such that a custodial sentence is appropriate as the starting point for all of the offences.

Having come to the conclusion that the offending taken as a whole crosses the custody threshold, as I have, I then have to determine whether the mitigation in your case is sufficient to justify retreating back over the custody threshold and to decide what the appropriate penalty should be.

Plea of Guilty

I now turn to the mitigation.

As in most cases the fact that you have pleaded guilty is an important piece of mitigation. In cases of sexual offending a plea of guilty avoids the necessity for the victim of the offence to undergo the ordeal of giving evidence which can at the very least be embarrassing and is often distressing and sometimes seriously damaging for the person involved.

You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management Hearing. That was not the earliest opportunity available to you to do so, because there was a Preliminary Hearing, and this Court has a widely publicised Early Guilty Plea Scheme which had you taken advantage of it would have enabled you to enter pleas of guilty at an earlier stage and gain full credit. I was made aware, at a hearing in chambers, at the Preliminary Hearing, that your lawyers were discussing a resolution of the case with the prosecution and accept that in the sensitive circumstances of a case of this kind those discussions needed to be conducted with a degree of delicacy.

Instead of maintaining a dignified silence or stating that you would make no comment, you chose to make a public statement to the effect that the allegations were false, describing them as “spurious and pernicious” as was widely reported. Although your guilty pleas have meant that your victims have not had to give evidence and relive their experiences in a court hearing, and they now know this, your earlier observations about their complaints which you now accept were neither spurious nor pernicious will have distressed them all, and it is clear from the victim statements that I have seen that your brazen attitude when first charged and the public protests of your innocence have added to the distress of some if not all of your victims.

I have come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate to give you full credit for a guilty plea entered at the first opportunity, but that I should give slightly reduced credit to reflect the fact that your observations will have meant that the victims will have thought that they would be required to give evidence and be cross-examined. I have noted what has been said on your behalf about the advice you were given and agree with the observation that your remarks on the steps of the court were ill-advised but it is clear from some of the victims’ statements that this conduct added to their distress, and the fact is that you have always known that you were guilty of these offences.

Other Mitigation

I now turn to other mitigation.

You are 83 years old with no previous convictions. Your age is an appropriate factor to take into account because for a man of your age a custodial sentence would be particularly difficult for you. It is also appropriate to note that your last offence on this indictment was over 25 years ago. When you entered your pleas of guilty your counsel, Mr Aylett QC, indicated that you were sorry and apologised for your offending to your victims and I accept that you have somewhat late in the day expressed your remorse.

It has been submitted on your behalf that I should make a reduction in any sentence of one third to take account of your age. That submission is based upon the decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the case of R v Heron [2009] EWCA Crim 94. I do not read that case as setting a general principle that the court should reduce sentences by a specific amount but it is appropriate to note that you are elderly and in some respects your health is not robust and I shall do so and take those factors into account and reduce the overall sentence accordingly.

As to your health I have read a report from your general medical practitioner and also a report about your wife’s health. You suffer from a number of complaints associated with old age, an irregular heart beat, an enlarged prostate and sinusitis. Your wife has restricted movement as a consequence of her health. However none of these matters is so serious as to warrant taking an exceptional course as a result, but they must be put into the overall balance.

I have considered the contents of the pre-sentence report with care. To the Probation officer you indicated that in 1986 you took the decision to stop your criminal behaviour towards others and stopped drinking spirits and chose to be celibate. There is no evidence before the Court of any offending since 1986 and I sentence you on that basis. This counters some of the adverse assessments in the pre-sentence report. I consider that some of the negative attitudes referred to in the report are more an indication that having taken the decision to change your ways you thought and hoped that you had put it all behind you and have found the fact that these matters have come to light difficult to come to terms with.

Character references, some from people well-known to the court, have been submitted, referring to the positively good aspects of your character. I have read all those references with care and it is very sad to see someone who is so well-regarded in the dock of this courtroom.

You have done an enormous amount of charitable work over the years and shown much kindness to others. In the course of your long career you have given pleasure to millions of people as a local television presenter in the North West, nationally in the “It’s a Knockout” series, and as a highly regarded sports commentator. You were known for the genial personality, charm, bonhomie and wit which you displayed in these various roles.

However those who have admired you for these qualities and the general public now know that there is a darker side to you, one hidden from public view until now, and a side which you were able to conceal taking advantage of your status as a well-liked celebrity. Several of these cases reveal an abuse of the trust placed in you by the parents of these children but all of them reveal an abuse of power by you because your status gave you an influence and standing which you abused.

Many years have elapsed since these crimes were committed, but that is no mitigation of the crimes themselves. The crimes should of course never have been committed because nearly every victim was a child at the time, and unwanted sexual advances, even for an adult, are distressing for the victim, but when they are directed towards a child who is unable to repel the attentions of an adult, an important barrier is crossed.

As is clear from the victim personal statements which I have read with care, many of your victims have lived with the shame and embarrassment resulting from your assaults, not sure how to cope with the effects of what were for these girls extremely unpleasant and distressing events, suffering what amounts in some cases to significant psychological trauma. I pay tribute to the victims who have come forward – it is by no means an easy thing to do.

This is by no means the worst example of sexual abuse of children to come before the Court, but notwithstanding the mitigation I have come to the conclusion that taken together these offences do call for a sentence of imprisonment which must be served immediately. The repeated sexual abuse of young children, too young to consent and in no position to resist your advances, even if the individual acts are relatively mild, is a serious crime and it must be made clear to anyone tempted to take advantage of young children and other vulnerable victims that they face condemnation and punishment.

I have considered whether consecutive sentences should be imposed. Undoubtedly applying general sentencing principles consecutive sentences could properly be imposed, but balanced against that is the need for the court to consider the principle of totality. I have come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case it is most appropriate to decide a sentence which reflects the totality of your offending and pass concurrent sentences for all matters distinguishing between the offences within the total sentence to reflect their relative seriousness. This also enables me to pass appropriate sentences for the more serious offences rather than to pass shorter sentences for each offence which would not reflect their individual seriousness if there were consecutive sentences, taking into account totality.

The mitigation has been taken into account by me in determining the appropriate starting point for sentence after a trial and I have reduced that starting point significantly, but the least sentence overall that is in my view appropriate after a trial taking all those factors into account would be a sentence of 20 months imprisonment. I shall reduce that to 15 months in all to give the credit for the plea of guilty in accordance with the Guidelines for pleas of guilty and the time the pleas were entered for the reasons I have indicated earlier. I have, accordingly reduced each sentence by 25% to give that degree of credit for your pleas of guilty.

The Sentence

The sentence of the Court is as follows:

For Count 1 - 6 months imprisonment

For Counts 2-4 - 3 months imprisonment on each count concurrent

For Count 6 - 15 months imprisonment concurrent

For Counts 10 and 11 – 6 months imprisonment on each count concurrent

For Counts 12, 13 and 14 – 9 months imprisonment on each count concurrent

For Count 15 – 15 months imprisonment concurrent

For Count 16 – 15 months imprisonment concurrent

For Count 17 – 6 months imprisonment concurrent

For Count 18 - 9 months imprisonment concurrent

All sentences to be concurrent amounting to 15 months in all.

Counts 5, 7, 8 and 9 will lie on the file on the usual terms not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.

I have considered whether I should make compensation orders in this case to compensate your victims for any personal injury or damage they have suffered. Although it seems clear that some if not all of your victims may have suffered psychological damage I do not consider that I have sufficient information to make a finding and certainly not enough information to quantify any compensation. Accordingly any of your victims who wish to claim compensation should do so through the civil courts or statutory schemes if applicable.

You are a wealthy man. You will pay £11,522 towards the costs of the prosecution.

You will be subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 10 years from the date of your conviction and will be served with a notice setting out your obligations. Breach of the requirements would amount to a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.

Having regard to the fact that your last offence was over 25 years ago I do not consider it is necessary to make a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for the protection of the public who will as a consequence of this case be well aware of your criminal activities.

I am required to inform you that by reason of your conviction your name will be included in the list of barred persons in relation to children compiled by the Disclosure and Barring Service pursuant to the provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006

Finally I direct that the letter from your GP Dr HE Thompson should accompany you to prison.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It wasn't that long ago that sex crimes of this type were considered trivial and often ignored

Thank heavens for small mercies.

After all this time he was put on trial found guilty and sentenced.

It won't be pleasant for him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"His sentence takes in to account the fact that at the time the offences were committed the maximum sentance was 2 years. Presumably it is then less than the maximum for pleading guilty. It will be interesting to see if their is any the precedent for sentencing to be in line with the punishment at the time of the offence rather than the time of conviction. Unsurprisingly the Attorney General has already been approached to review whether the sentence is unduly lenient.

I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing."

If the tariff is set at what it would be at the time of the crime, how would it work for someone who committed a murder when the death penalty was in place???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do love the "string em up", "I'd kill im if e touched my little uns", "bring back angin that's what I say" brigade.

Makes me nostalgic for the 1970's. Back when chicken tasted like chicken, you could leave your front door unlocked and there was a friendly copper on every street corner.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"His sentence takes in to account the fact that at the time the offences were committed the maximum sentance was 2 years. Presumably it is then less than the maximum for pleading guilty. It will be interesting to see if their is any the precedent for sentencing to be in line with the punishment at the time of the offence rather than the time of conviction. Unsurprisingly the Attorney General has already been approached to review whether the sentence is unduly lenient.

I do think that being imprisoned as a sex offender at his age and after a life of celebrity could prove incredibly difficult for him to cope with physicaly and mentally but regardless the sentence seems too lenient to me and I don't think age or health should be used in mitigation when sentencing.

If the tariff is set at what it would be at the time of the crime, how would it work for someone who committed a murder when the death penalty was in place???"

That's a thought that crossed my mind. The judge's logic is shocking and I'm genuinely intrigued to see if there is any sort of precedent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I do love the "string em up", "I'd kill im if e touched my little uns", "bring back angin that's what I say" brigade.

Makes me nostalgic for the 1970's. Back when chicken tasted like chicken, you could leave your front door unlocked and there was a friendly copper on every street corner.

"

And the trains ran on time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs...."

So it seems it isn't

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rank_SimoneCouple
over a year ago

Bideford

Quite easy really, I would bury him with him pal Jimmy in the 69 position and I don't care if he is still alive. Would save the tax payer money in the long run.

All sentences for sexual offences are too light, but because of our do-gooder society the criminals are often portrayed as the victim's.

Should go back to the old days where the community were allowed to hand out the punishment with no repercussions.

But that will never happen in todays society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Say the government made sex clubs illegal with a minimum sentence of three years in prison. It would be exceedingly unfair if they went through the reviews of sex clubs on this site and imprisioned us all who had been prior to the law coming in to force.

The same principal applies here. Regardless of the crime you cannot give someone a stronger sentence than the one at the time the crime was commited.

I agree the sentence is very low and as it has been referred to the attorney general (as has been mentioned in other posts), it is likely to be reviewed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs....

So it seems it isn't "

But it is, the judge has sentenced him within the guidelines, what he hasn't done is sentenced him at the top end of the tariff scale.

He could have given him Seven to Eight years maximum according to the tariff guidelines, according to tonight's news, but he has used the discretion afforded to our judiciary and chosen to hand down less.

His age, guilty plea, and extent of the offences would have been taken into account.

Is 15 months enough?.....of course it isn't, but the judge is perfectly able and entitled to choose to hand down this sentence.

Many, less famous offenders receive similar sentences, they just don't make the news because they are not household names.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oasterCockbumMan
over a year ago

Highway 61

I just hope that he gets some poetic justice .... such as ; for his 15 months in the pokey he attracts the attention of a sadistic OAPeado who makes his life a misery , pisses in his tea and humps his auld arse daily so it ends up like a burst pomegranate and causes him untold pain and suffering him and his like deserve ...... or summin ......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He was sentenced to 15 months..he gets a 1/3 off that for pleading guilty and half off for good behaviour so he could and probably will be out in 5 months! !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

...he won't spend 15 months in jail that's what I was getting at. .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs....

So it seems it isn't

But it is, the judge has sentenced him within the guidelines, what he hasn't done is sentenced him at the top end of the tariff scale.

."

Lot's of conflicting posts it seems, some say he was sentanced as to what he would have been sentanced then and you say it is the same as now.

Either way, whichever one it is, I don't think it is enough, whoever it is.

I am sure it makes the news though for other offenders, they just probably don't get noticed as much or front page stuff.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

All sentences for sexual offences are too light, but because of our do-gooder society the criminals are often portrayed as the victim's.

Should go back to the old days where the community were allowed to hand out the punishment with no repercussions.

But that will never happen in todays society. "

what happens when some little shit names one of your loved ones on a social media site as a paedophile..?

and the good upstanding members of the community lynch them..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's in line with current sentencing tariffs....

So it seems it isn't

But it is, the judge has sentenced him within the guidelines, what he hasn't done is sentenced him at the top end of the tariff scale.

.

Lot's of conflicting posts it seems, some say he was sentanced as to what he would have been sentanced then and you say it is the same as now.

Either way, whichever one it is, I don't think it is enough, whoever it is.

I am sure it makes the news though for other offenders, they just probably don't get noticed as much or front page stuff."

It's five years (10 years if the child is under 13) since the 1956 law was amended in the late 80's.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

King's Crustacean

[Removed by poster at 17/06/13 21:40:41]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have had a quick read through of this thread, but apologies if this has already been mentioned.

Announced on the radio earlier this evening that the sentence handed down to Hall has already been referred to the Attorney General for being too lenient.

Let's hope the A.G. has a bit more feeling for public sentiment on this one...

ted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"He was sentenced to 15 months..he gets a 1/3 off that for pleading guilty and half off for good behaviour so he could and probably will be out in 5 months! ! "

The third off was already reflected in the 15 month sentence handed down.

He would be expected to serve half that sentence....ie seven and a half months. He may be eligible for HDC...Home Detention Curfew or tag and could be out earlier.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rank_SimoneCouple
over a year ago

Bideford


"

All sentences for sexual offences are too light, but because of our do-gooder society the criminals are often portrayed as the victim's.

Should go back to the old days where the community were allowed to hand out the punishment with no repercussions.

But that will never happen in todays society.

what happens when some little shit names one of your loved ones on a social media site as a paedophile..?

and the good upstanding members of the community lynch them..?

We are taking about people found guilty, and I don't agree with suspects being named for that reason until they have been found guilty.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

its is and it isn't....

the problem is that we are talking about 2 different periods... pre 2003 and post 2003...

before 2003 the maximum sentence for the convictions is 2-5years.....

post 2003, they come under the sexual offenders act... and the maximum sentence is now 10 years.....

because these crimes were committed between pre 2003, they have to go under those guildlines...

plus his age... and his ill health and those things have to be taken into consideration...

the AG (attorney general) can still take a look at the case and appeal the length of sentences within 28 days if they believe they are not long enough

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oodmessMan
over a year ago

yumsville

I havent read all the replies, but I would think he'll be lucky to get out of jail. Paedos arent looked that well upon to say the least. Though I expect he will be under a lot of security.

I am wondering though if there was any compensation pay out? I remember something like he signed his house over to his wife within a few weeks of court action being filed

Disgusting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I do love the "string em up", "I'd kill im if e touched my little uns", "bring back angin that's what I say" brigade.

Makes me nostalgic for the 1970's. Back when chicken tasted like chicken, you could leave your front door unlocked and there was a friendly copper on every street corner.

And the trains ran on time"

The cops were corrupt & the trains ran on time my ass!!! ..........the chicken was tastier though!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

On the same day hall got his crappy sentence a graffiti artist in London got 3 years for writing his name on Walls! Seems a little unfair to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed.

On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...???

Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way....

ted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On the same day hall got his crappy sentence a graffiti artist in London got 3 years for writing his name on Walls! Seems a little unfair to me. "

Maybe it was particuarly poor art

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On the same day hall got his crappy sentence a graffiti artist in London got 3 years for writing his name on Walls! Seems a little unfair to me.

Maybe it was particuarly poor art "

Lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield


"I do love the "string em up", "I'd kill im if e touched my little uns", "bring back angin that's what I say" brigade.

Makes me nostalgic for the 1970's. Back when chicken tasted like chicken, you could leave your front door unlocked and there was a friendly copper on every street corner.

And the trains ran on time

The cops were corrupt & the trains ran on time my ass!!! ..........the chicken was tastier though!! "

And a 'respectable' adult who took an interest in your kids could be trusted to be alone with them...

Times and attitudes have changed but some for the better. Although the cult of celebrity may mean that this could still happen today - hopefully todays attitudes mean that a child would be able to speak out and not have to repress it for 30+ years.

And to all those advocating violence if it had been one of their children remember that many abusers will persuade their victims that mummy and daddy won't believe them or will be angry or even separated from them if they tell. Far better to engender an environment of trust instead of perpetuating violence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And to all those advocating violence if it had been one of their children remember that many abusers will persuade their victims that mummy and daddy won't believe them or will be angry or even separated from them if they tell. Far better to engender an environment of trust instead of perpetuating violence."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Dirty old bastard hope he chokes in his sleep

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rtemisiaWoman
over a year ago

Norwich

He is old and he will die in shame with his reputation forever in ruins. Not sure that this will feel like sufficient compensation for his victims however. As for stringing him up, it is to be hoped that he feels sufficiently low to hang himself.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evilwolfCouple
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"15 months???? How disgusting is that

you having a laff 15 months for what was it 12 kids over how long ffs why bother......just give me 5 mins an form a orderly line behind me all those with kids grrrrrr make my blood fecking boil "

it's a cop out

Wolf

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Women abusers seem to get alot less attention. All the hate cones out when its against a man. Castrate him etc etc. Next time a woman does wrong i hope she is subjected to tits cut off comnents

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If this had come to court back when it happened , he would have walked.

Small mercies

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If this had come to court back when it happened , he would have walked.

Small mercies"

I doubt he will be able to walk much after a few days in prison.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oodmessMan
over a year ago

yumsville


"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed.

On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...???

Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way....

ted.

"

So true.

The victims take him to civil court and sue the fuck out of him too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

All sentences for sexual offences are too light, but because of our do-gooder society the criminals are often portrayed as the victim's.

Should go back to the old days where the community were allowed to hand out the punishment with no repercussions.

But that will never happen in todays society.

what happens when some little shit names one of your loved ones on a social media site as a paedophile..?

and the good upstanding members of the community lynch them..?

We are taking about people found guilty, and I don't agree with suspects being named for that reason until they have been found guilty.

"

you dont exactly make that clear in your post though do you?

as weak as this sentence is and sends out the wrong message imho its far better to have the justice system we have with its inherent problems than some form of vigilante thuggery..

as shown by the NOTW campaign think it was Sarah's law, there are folk within 'our communities' who with your preference would be stringing up paediatricians..

as for only when found guilty, too many documented cases whereby the names of some falsly accused have 'been leaked'..

not sure i agree on the being named point, in Halls case many victims only came forward once he was charged..

no doubt they felt that they 'would now be believed' and given the circumstances of the case their evidence added weight and ensured a conviction..

respect its a delicate one as in naming someone there will even post acquittal be the 'no smoke without fire' pov..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 18/06/13 20:16:52]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

Verdict expected today by three judges on the appeal of his fifteen month sentence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed.

On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...???

Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way....

ted.

"

Doesn't really work that way around. If something is now a crime that wasn't before you cannot retrospectively prosecute them. The sentencing applies in the same way. Same thing applies if something is no longer a crime you can't go back and prosecute for it. Whether we are outraged or not that's how all civilised countries run their legal systems

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just been on that sentence is to be reviewed as to whether it is unduly lenient..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

There have been two similar prominent cases in the Devon area over the last couple of years, both involved ex school masters of boarding schools around this way and were historic offences.

Both involved multiple offences and both defendants received a sentence similar to that given to Stuart Hall.

Too lenient?.....without a doubt, but we shouldn't get carried away in thinking that Stuart Hall's sentence was in any way unusually lenient simply because he was famous as that isn't the case.

Hopefully the appeal court will increase the sentence today.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urvywelshCouple
over a year ago

Everywhere and nowhere baby

I'd castrate all peadophiles with a blunt spoon. Sorry but that's how I feel.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'd castrate all peadophiles with a blunt spoon. Sorry but that's how I feel. "

And I'd lock up all people who wish to harm other people deliberately. Sorry but that's how I feel.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"I'd castrate all peadophiles with a blunt spoon. Sorry but that's how I feel. "

Vegetables...the lot of them!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hoosy_strumpetCouple
over a year ago

W F AREA

I think he did have a lenient sentence, and there seems to be a blackout as to which prison he is in, or is that because he is in an open prison because of his age and who he is, just like the mp"s with the driving offences etc etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

No evidence but I suspect he's in Leyhill.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think he did have a lenient sentence, and there seems to be a blackout as to which prison he is in, or is that because he is in an open prison because of his age and who he is, just like the mp"s with the driving offences etc etc "

His age will have an impact on sentencing and also on his placement. As a rule driving offences aren't why MPs have gone to jail, it was one mp and he lied about it. His punishment was commensurate with others committing similar crimes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think most people would be a bit happier with the sentence he is serving if there was one simple change.

Concurrent to consecutive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

Apparently the Court of Appeal considered 82 cases that were referred to it by the Attorney General last year as being 'unduly lenient'.

The sentence was increased in 62 cases...approximately 75%.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently the Court of Appeal considered 82 cases that were referred to it by the Attorney General last year as being 'unduly lenient'.

The sentence was increased in 62 cases...approximately 75%."

That's why they exist

Of course 82 cases is a very very small percentage of the total number of cases heard.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"Apparently the Court of Appeal considered 82 cases that were referred to it by the Attorney General last year as being 'unduly lenient'.

The sentence was increased in 62 cases...approximately 75%.

That's why they exist

Of course 82 cases is a very very small percentage of the total number of cases heard."

The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences.

Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Checks and balances are important in a court case. It creates a more balanced approach to sentencing in most cases. Of course with anything emotive people have very strong opinions and therefor I suspect that no matte what they decide today, someone will be outraged and their "piss will boil" etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed.

On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...???

Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way....

ted.

Doesn't really work that way around. If something is now a crime that wasn't before you cannot retrospectively prosecute them. The sentencing applies in the same way. Same thing applies if something is no longer a crime you can't go back and prosecute for it. Whether we are outraged or not that's how all civilised countries run their legal systems "

I'm fully aware of the points you make, but I was trying to highlight that there is a certain 'hypocrisy' in the justice system re: historically-related sentencing. Comes down to the 'Man on the No. 8 bus' position, does it not? Is 15 months for such crimes - regardless of whether that would have been the sentence if handed down contemporaneously - fair and reasonable to ... the man on the no. 8 bus. Ie. the average man in the street.

By the reaction across the media and by the public, it would seem 15 months is 'lenient' in most people's view. What would be appropriate is another debate.

ted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences.

Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction. "

And your point is?

In this case it is for 'unduly lenient'

And the point being that last year 82 cases were heard in the category of being 'unduly lenient' of which approx 75% were increased.

And in this case the appellant is probably the prosecution and not stuart hall or his defence team.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is being said that Hall has got 15 months as that would be the level of sentencing he would have received had he been caught at the time the offences were committed.

On that basis, if someone were to be convicted now for a murder committed in 1960, would we hang them now...??? After all, that was the sentence at the time, was it not...???

Feel some people are wriggling on this one. Just hope the Attorney General feels the same way....

ted.

Doesn't really work that way around. If something is now a crime that wasn't before you cannot retrospectively prosecute them. The sentencing applies in the same way. Same thing applies if something is no longer a crime you can't go back and prosecute for it. Whether we are outraged or not that's how all civilised countries run their legal systems

I'm fully aware of the points you make, but I was trying to highlight that there is a certain 'hypocrisy' in the justice system re: historically-related sentencing. Comes down to the 'Man on the No. 8 bus' position, does it not? Is 15 months for such crimes - regardless of whether that would have been the sentence if handed down contemporaneously - fair and reasonable to ... the man on the no. 8 bus. Ie. the average man in the street.

By the reaction across the media and by the public, it would seem 15 months is 'lenient' in most people's view. What would be appropriate is another debate.

ted."

The problem is that the media generate much of the "most people's view" by being highly selective in their reporting of the case. The reality is that the case should be heard in a court of law and then appealed in the appropriate way, the media normally choose an "outraged" position, tell us all we should be disgusted and then report that we are indeed disgusted. The court of appeal will look at the sentencing and make a decision. My prediction is, that unless they give him the maximum sentence people will again be "outraged" and off we go one more time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem is that the media generate much of the "most people's view" by being highly selective in their reporting of the case. The reality is that the case should be heard in a court of law and then appealed in the appropriate way, the media normally choose an "outraged" position, tell us all we should be disgusted and then report that we are indeed disgusted. The court of appeal will look at the sentencing and make a decision. My prediction is, that unless they give him the maximum sentence people will again be "outraged" and off we go one more time. "

You are, of course, quite correct. The media always takes the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' position so I try my best to disregard them. It's up to the Court to decide and, if there is something wrong with the sentencing rules, to refer THAT back to the Min of Justice. As per usual, the media-influenced general public will blame the wrong target - in this case, the Judge. But then, I've no doubt it suits 'someone, somewhere's' case for that status quo to continue...

ted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"

The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences.

Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction.

And your point is?

In this case it is for 'unduly lenient'

And the point being that last year 82 cases were heard in the category of being 'unduly lenient' of which approx 75% were increased.

And in this case the appellant is probably the prosecution and not stuart hall or his defence team."

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The dirty perverted bastard should rot in prison and never be let out

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The Court of Appeal has a Civil and Criminal Division which deals with more than 'unduly lenient' sentences.

Appellants can appeal length of their sentence as well as conviction.

And your point is?

In this case it is for 'unduly lenient'

And the point being that last year 82 cases were heard in the category of being 'unduly lenient' of which approx 75% were increased.

And in this case the appellant is probably the prosecution and not stuart hall or his defence team.

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! "

Sorry I misread that. I realise that. The number is still small though especially in the case of changed sentencing. The AG ones tend to be done for political reasons in many cases (appeasing

Public outcry)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The dirty perverted bastard should rot in prison and never be let out "

Excellent thanks for that input. Do you have any insights on the specifics of the case at all? Anything you've based that specific point on perhaps?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

Court if Appeal has ruled that the sentence was 'unduly lenient' but no revised sentence yet pronounced.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

Increased to thirty months!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

*Court of Appeal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

[Removed by poster at 26/07/13 13:12:10]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!! "

You don't say!!!

TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld.

You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed.

The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Increased to thirty months!!!!"

Last I saw him on telly he didn't look like a man who has thirty months left in him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!!

You don't say!!!

TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld.

You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed.

The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence..."

I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me.

He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!!

You don't say!!!

TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld.

You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed.

The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence...

I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me.

He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!! "

Hey don't bring me into this!

I suspect though we will have the usual "it's outrageous I'd kill him" posts now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *innamon!Woman
over a year ago

no matter

30 months now not 15 .. so justice done ..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!!

You don't say!!!

TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld.

You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed.

The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence...

I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me.

He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!!

Hey don't bring me into this!

I suspect though we will have the usual "it's outrageous I'd kill him" posts now "

I suspect you will be right. There's already been a few but await the onslaught.

I'll try to keep you out of future posts lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I doubt if he'll see out 15 months to be honest, he looked very frail when he appeared at his trial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"The dirty perverted bastard should rot in prison and never be let out

Excellent thanks for that input. Do you have any insights on the specifics of the case at all? Anything you've based that specific point on perhaps?"

Probably all of it. He is a pervert there is no getting away from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *coobyroo218Couple
over a year ago

Guernsey

he has just had his sentence doubled and they say its the maximum they can give him apparently

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"he has just had his sentence doubled and they say its the maximum they can give him apparently"

As I understand it.....sentencing in historical cases has to be carried out according to the sentences that were available to the courts at the time that the offences took place....so they have their hands tied

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!!

You don't say!!!

TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld.

You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed.

The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence...

I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me.

He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!! "

Ah, sorry. I've gone back and read from the beginning of where this started and I misunderstood where each quote started and ended , could do with being able to determine who quoted what in the cases of multiple quotes.

It's fairly obvious that 80 odd cases is a minute amount of the appeal court case load, and that most appeals are made by the convicted and not the prosecution or AG. Please accept my apologies

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt if he'll see out 15 months to be honest, he looked very frail when he appeared at his trial."

When Ernest Sunders was released from Ford Open Prison in June 1991 after serving only 10 months of a 30 month sentence, it was on grounds that he was suffering from Altzheimer's Disease.

He then held at least three more Executive or Board positions before his retirement.... and never showed any sign of Altzheimer's again....

Not that I'm suggesting anything about how Prisoner Hall looked at his trial....

ted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt if he'll see out 15 months to be honest, he looked very frail when he appeared at his trial.

When Ernest Sunders was released from Ford Open Prison in June 1991 after serving only 10 months of a 30 month sentence, it was on grounds that he was suffering from Altzheimer's Disease.

He then held at least three more Executive or Board positions before his retirement.... and never showed any sign of Altzheimer's again....

Not that I'm suggesting anything about how Prisoner Hall looked at his trial....

ted."

Having had executive positions I'd say Alzheimer's would've helped!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I doubt if he'll see out 15 months to be honest, he looked very frail when he appeared at his trial.

When Ernest Sunders was released from Ford Open Prison in June 1991 after serving only 10 months of a 30 month sentence, it was on grounds that he was suffering from Altzheimer's Disease.

He then held at least three more Executive or Board positions before his retirement.... and never showed any sign of Altzheimer's again....

Not that I'm suggesting anything about how Prisoner Hall looked at his trial....

ted.

Having had executive positions I'd say Alzheimer's would've helped!"

Hmmm.... maybe....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"

My point was made to Torjames...that the Court of Appeal exists for more than 'unduly lenient' sentences referred by the Attorney General...the clue is in what I wrote!!

You don't say!!!

TorJames was quoting some statistics, with relevance to the case of stuart hall. I.E. the fact that x amount of appeals were heard for undue lenience and that x amount were upheld.

You're comment that it's for all appeals has no relevance to the case being discussed.

The clue is in the fact that stuart hall is not appealing his sentence but the AG is appealing the unduly lenient sentence...

I really think you're missing the point. The statistics that Torjames was quoting were ones made by me.

He apologised for misreading my post in a later post. Chill out!!!

Ah, sorry. I've gone back and read from the beginning of where this started and I misunderstood where each quote started and ended , could do with being able to determine who quoted what in the cases of multiple quotes.

It's fairly obvious that 80 odd cases is a minute amount of the appeal court case load, and that most appeals are made by the convicted and not the prosecution or AG. Please accept my apologies "

Hey not a problem....thought the heat was affecting you lol Agree with you on the quote system...I have contacted Admin in the past to see if they can just show one post in a quote rather than a whole string...and to have the posters name attached to the quote would be a bonus

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top