15 months for Stuart Hall, pleaded guilty to 13 assualts

The Running Man · 18 Jun 2013 at 11:05

TJM said:
Hall is 83 years old; any custodial sentence is going to represent a large portion of his remaining life and carry the risk of death in prison, which is quite a stiff punishment.

It was a stiff series of crimes he committed. Don't let age blind you this wasn't the case of a young man who accidently pulled a 15 year old at a club purporting to be 18. He targeted a number of victims and took advantage on numerous occasions.

MooMoo444 · 18 Jun 2013 at 11:48

13 separate cases of assault?

I thought each case would be like 6 months inside, so at least 6 years?

Exceedingly lenient.

The Running Man · 18 Jun 2013 at 11:55

Lenient and concurrent /face palm.

Burnsy2023 · 18 Jun 2013 at 12:24

The Running Man said:
Lenient and concurrent /face palm.

The thing is, the judge wasn't even particularly lenient, if anything it was the opposite.

Uther · 18 Jun 2013 at 12:33

Justice has to be 'seen' to be done. In this case I would guess a rather large percentage of people would not agree that it has been, considering the type and number of offenses.

Mr Jones · 18 Jun 2013 at 13:58

What got on my nerves with this sentencing:

1) He was charged on the same level as if he was being charged at the time of the crime - 3 decades or so ago.

2) His age is taken into account for crimes he commited when he was much younger - now he's too old and dying in Jail is bad(?!).

2 Things that in my opinion contradicts each other.

What's worst is a work colleague's Son (18 years old) was charged with GBH as an adult for an incident that happened when he was 16, during a rugby game. (Long story short, post game pile up, he apparently punched a kid, CPS took 2 years before taking action).

Of which, none of what Stuart Hall's judge considered was the same as the judge that sat at that young kid's. Aren't all judges suppose to balance the word of law with the same blind judgement?

Busa · 18 Jun 2013 at 14:28

The Judge in this case has a history of lenient sentences for sex offenders and after reading the summing up again it seems to me that the judge is saying that because Halls last known offence was 25 years ago then he should have a lighter sentence. Anthony Russell QC is an idiot with a soft spot for sex offenders it seems.

MooMoo444 · 18 Jun 2013 at 14:58

Bleh, whether you do the crime 50 years ago or 50 minutes ago, you still did the crime and deserve to do the punishment.

Skunkworks · 18 Jun 2013 at 15:11

If he's too old for an appropriate prison term, then slap a huge fine on him too. Seize and sell some of his assets - he's bound to be worth a few quid.

drunkenmaster · 18 Jun 2013 at 16:45

Skunkworks said:
If he's too old for an appropriate prison term, then slap a huge fine on him too. Seize and sell some of his assets - he's bound to be worth a few quid.

He's not too old for a prison sentence, age shouldn't be a consideration, and he shouldn't get away without an appropriate jail sentence because he has money, the very idea of that utterly sickens me. Because he's rich we'll settle for giving him a reduced sentence and taking some of his money?

MooMoo444 · 18 Jun 2013 at 16:47

The very fact that he is rich means a financial punishment wouldn't affect him anyway.

Skunkworks · 18 Jun 2013 at 17:04

drunkenmaster said:
He's not too old for a prison sentence, age shouldn't be a consideration, and he shouldn't get away without an appropriate jail sentence because he has money, the very idea of that utterly sickens me. Because he's rich we'll settle for giving him a reduced sentence and taking some of his money?

I agree, but one of the mitigating factors that keeps appearing is his age. The thought of him dying in jail doesn't bother me at all.

MooMoo444 said:
The very fact that he is rich means a financial punishment wouldn't affect him anyway.

Depends how much you take. Plus, if he'd been caught and convicted at the time there's a good chance he wouldn't have accumulated that money anyway.

Xordium · 18 Jun 2013 at 18:59

Burnsy2023 said:
He doesn't have 100+ convictions like proper career criminals.

Yes, because he had the power to get away with it and the position to manipulate events his way.

Nitefly · 18 Jun 2013 at 20:43

Burnsy2023 said:
There is an element of punishment but it's not their only function. I wouldn't even say it was the primary function.

I would say it's function was, in decreasing priority:

1) punitive;

2) to prevent people entering into criminal activity;

3) to prevent criminals persisting with criminal activity;

4) rehabilitation.

2 and 3 only flow as a result of 1.

Skunkworks · 26 Jul 2013 at 14:15

Just had his sentence doubled:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778

Seems a bit more appropriate to me.

Busa · 26 Jul 2013 at 14:20

That's a bit more like it.

Burnsy2023 · 26 Jul 2013 at 14:59

So he'll spend a bit over a year in jail rather than just a bit under a year. That's fine, but it's not exactly a million miles away from the original sentence.

Pudney · 26 Jul 2013 at 17:12

Burnsy2023 said:
So he'll spend a bit over a year in jail rather than just a bit under a year. That's fine, but it's not exactly a million miles away from the original sentence.

The judges are constrained by the laws in force at the time of the offence though, the maximum sentence available is ridiculously short.

marc2003 · 26 Jul 2013 at 17:20

Pudney said:
The judges are constrained by the laws in force at the time of the offence though, the maximum sentence available is ridiculously short.

i did not know of this. i presume anyone convicted of these same crimes now would get a far longer sentence?

either way, he's got off very lightly. given his age, he'll have an easy time in jail and in the intervening years, he's got to live a full life outside with complete disregard for his victims.

Pudney · 26 Jul 2013 at 17:31

marc2003 said:
i did not know of this. i presume anyone convicted of these same crimes now would get a far longer sentence?

either way, he's got off very lightly. given his age, he'll have an easy time in jail and in the intervening years, he's got to live a full life outside with complete disregard for his victims.

Aye, I only found this out because of BBC breakfast this morning! Apparently the maximum sentence when he committed most of the acts was 2 years, nowadays it's 10 years. I think the only reason the judges were able to extend it was by having one of the sentences not run consecutively.