Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 100732	2009-06-19 00:01:00	Wait, what	george12 (7)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
783534	2009-06-20 05:47:00	At first I was appalled too but having now read the report, sadly conclude that this vermin is at the low end of the scale . As a sex offender he doesn't rate - by which I mean there are far far worse cases . He's still a piece of filth . If anyone is interested, here is the sentencing guideline for this category - and no, I haven't paragraphed it - this is the format we have to read this stuff: Indecent assault upon girl under 12 The Court of Appeal had to determine the appropriate sentence for an offence of indecent assault upon girl under 12 after it quashed a conviction for sexual violation by rape and substituted a conviction for this offence in R v B (CA 353/01) (CA 353/01, 1 May 2002, Blanchard, Salmon and Chambers JJ) . The victim was the seven year-old step-daughter of the offender and the assault was just short of sexual intercourse . Adopting a process of reasoning by analogy as in R v V (CA 180/01) (CA 180/01, 30 August 2001, Richardson P, Heron and Chambers JJ) (see para I . 2 . 4(e)) based on the eight year starting point for rape, a starting point of four years would be appropriate . However, if that approach were adopted, the resultant sentence would be higher than that which had been imposed in most cases of indecent assault under s 133 . The possibility of a review of sentencing practice for offences against the section was raised but not pursued due to the absence of detailed submissions . The incident was accepted as being of short duration, not involving penetration beyond the complainant’s genitalia . A starting point of three years was taken . The mitigating and aggravating factors cancelled each other out . The final sentence was thus three years’ imprisonment . That may be, but just because there are so many worse offenders out there doesn't mean that he should get a light sentence . However I don't really understand what you quoted though, it sounds like a specific case . So is three years a "guideline" sentence or is there an actual min and max?	george12 (7)
783535	2009-06-20 09:50:00	Crimes Act 1961 135 Indecent assault Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who indecently assaults another person. So. The above guideline comes from a case which discussed other cases. That's how it works - looking at what the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal has had to say on sentencing for specific crimes. Eventually one case summerises previous decisions. What the above tells us is that in the case of rape (maximum sentence 20 years) the starting point is 8 years. The sentencing judge then increases or decreases the years by assessing positive and negative matters. For example, a guilty plea saves the victim from facing a trial and reduces the sentence. Also there is a whole continuum of awfulness for any offence. Gang rape with violence is at the high end. Taking advantage of an intoxicated unconcious girl (without violence) is at the low end. Wrong - but different degrees. The guideline talks about a starting point of 4 years, then immediately says that is too high for the specific offence being considered, and the judges go back to three years. They then add up the pluses and minuses and decide they balance, in which case three years is the final sentence. Does that help?	Winston001 (3612)
783536	2009-06-20 09:57:00	Its just occurred to me that R v B is out of date. At the time the maximum sentence for indecent assault for a girl under 12 was 10 years. The laws been changed to 7 years. As for the doctor: I'll explain the mitigation. He pleaded guilty - no trial. He apologised. The events occurred 20 years ago and the man has never been in trouble since. The indecent assault details aren't reported but sound as though they were not far beyond what a doctor might do in his work. But clearly it was more and the two girls were not happy. Two years in prison is no picnic plus his career and good name is destroyed. I'd expect his family has abandoned him too.	Winston001 (3612)
783537	2009-06-20 11:04:00	Its just occurred to me that R v B is out of date . At the time the maximum sentence for indecent assault for a girl under 12 was 10 years . The laws been changed to 7 years . As for the doctor: I'll explain the mitigation . He pleaded guilty - no trial . He apologised . The events occurred 20 years ago and the man has never been in trouble since . The indecent assault details aren't reported but sound as though they were not far beyond what a doctor might do in his work . But clearly it was more and the two girls were not happy . Two years in prison is no picnic plus his career and good name is destroyed . I'd expect his family has abandoned him too . Fair enough . Putting it that way, the sentence is not as bad as I thought .	george12 (7)
1 2