Stuart Hall's sentence doubled

[Jeffrey Shaw]

don't do the crime and don't worry about if your sentence will double

True; but should 2013-type sentencing apply at all?

[LeMaquis]

True; but should 2013-type sentencing apply at all?

 

The new sentencing decision relates to the recent trial not to when the offences took place.

[redfox]

The sentence was reviewed by the Attorney General pursuant to his powers to ask that the court of appeal look again on the basis he said that it was unduly lenient.

The sentencing powers available to the court of appeal as the crown court is as the law allowed at the time of the offences - it perhaps shows how this form of behavior was viewed in the late 60's early 70's and before the law changed and allowed for very much longer sentences.

 

It will have been fairly obvious in such a high profile case (the first of many potentially) that the court of appeal would be involved and set something of a bench mark for similar cases.

[melthebell]

I may be in a minority but from what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged offences, I doubt they were even worthy of a custodial sentence at all, never mind an increased one.

 

The problem is the general public read some tabloid soundbites about some former celebrity being a “peado” and they generally assume he spent his whole life raping young kids.

 

From what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged abuses, they seem remarkably innocent; a peck on the cheek here, a pinch on the bum there, a friendly cuddle that maybe went on too long. And with no witnesses I find it very odd that the accounts of his compensation-chasing “victims” are taken as gospel truth.

 

Please note I’m not condoning any form of sexual attacks on children but it seems to me more that Stuart Hall is just a harmless, slightly pervy old man rather than the predatory peado he’s been vilified as.

not sure about condoning but you seem very blase on what after all IS sexual attacks

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The new sentencing decision relates to the recent trial not to when the offences took place.

Yes, it does- but that's not really the question that I asked.

[Clown Shoes]

I may be in a minority but from what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged offences, I doubt they were even worthy of a custodial sentence at all, never mind an increased one.

 

The problem is the general public read some tabloid soundbites about some former celebrity being a “peado” and they generally assume he spent his whole life raping young kids.

 

From what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged abuses, they seem remarkably innocent; a peck on the cheek here, a pinch on the bum there, a friendly cuddle that maybe went on too long. And with no witnesses I find it very odd that the accounts of his compensation-chasing “victims” are taken as gospel truth.

 

Please note I’m not condoning any form of sexual attacks on children but it seems to me more that Stuart Hall is just a harmless, slightly pervy old man rather than the predatory peado he’s been vilified as.

 

He pleaded guilty!

 

I dont think much more has to be said really.

[altus]

He pleaded guilty!

 

I dont think much more has to be said really.

 

Indeed. What we've read in the media is not the charge sheet. He may well be guilty of pinching bums as well but he'll have got his sentence for more serious offences.

[Halibut]

I may be in a minority but from what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged offences, I doubt they were even worthy of a custodial sentence at all, never mind an increased one.

 

The problem is the general public read some tabloid soundbites about some former celebrity being a “peado” and they generally assume he spent his whole life raping young kids.

 

From what I’ve read of Stuart Hall’s alleged abuses, they seem remarkably innocent; a peck on the cheek here, a pinch on the bum there, a friendly cuddle that maybe went on too long. And with no witnesses I find it very odd that the accounts of his compensation-chasing “victims” are taken as gospel truth.

 

Please note I’m not condoning any form of sexual attacks on children but it seems to me more that Stuart Hall is just a harmless, slightly pervy old man rather than the predatory peado he’s been vilified as.

 

That's exactly what you are doing. You're saying Hall's assaults seem 'innocent' and not worthy of a custodial sentence. You call him 'harmless'.

 

Can I suggest that you think a bit and do a bit more research before you call a serial sex offender like Hall, whose youngest victim was nine years old.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

As usual, remind yourself that no-one on SF has seen or heard all the evidence; nor the legal arguments; nor the mitigation.

Judging anything based on journalists' reports is inadvisable.

[redfox]

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-stuart-hall

 

The sentencing comments by the Judge at Preston.

Full details of the appeal are not yet available.