www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14370398
Seems a bit extreme to me, taking in account that most people seem to walk free, even for ABH, but I guess that's what you get for messing with (and embarrassing) the establishment.
|
|
Strictly speaking I don't think either of the Murdochs are "Establishment". The real establishment is trying to keep them out and a good thing too.
|
No remorse, quite the reverse, he seems proud of the offence, which is an affront to both parliament and the rule of law.
Disrespecting the court process is never a good idea, add the parliamentary angle, and the result was almost inevitable.
|
He did make the one good joke of the whole affair quoting Murdoch's words after his arrest:
"This has been the most humble day of my life''
Should earn him a few weeks off.
|
|
Matt's cartoon in the DT the next day had two men in suits walking out of a Greek bank. One was saying to the other "Every day is the humblest day of MY life!"
|
Seems a bit strong - the sentencing guidelines say "two or more factors" need to be triggered to aggravate the starting point of community order into custody.
Which two did the judge apply, I wonder? Admittedly there was the other charge of "harassment, alarm or distress" as well.
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/common_assult/
|
...the sentencing guidelines say...
The answer to that is: 'Guidelines not tramlines.'
It's a phrase I've heard trotted out in court a few times, usually by a defending barrister in a bid to prevent his client receiving a well-merited custodial sentence.
|
|
interesting iffy. From a layman's point of view, entirely armchair, the buzz amongst magistrates seems to be that they really do have to follow the guidelines pretty well, and in reality don't deviate from them other than in very exceptional circumstances. Is that not the case then?
|
... Is that not the case then?...
Magistrates tend to follow the guidelines, partly because they are lay people and are frightened/not confident enough to go against them.
A few of the guidelines are proscriptive - drink driving is a mandatory ban, so there's no point in any clever 'guidelines not tramlines' submissions there, the guideline is a tramline.
This case was heard in the magistrates' court - as it must be - but by a district judge (DJ).
DJs are the modern rough equivalent of the old stipendiary (paid) magistrates, but they have legal training and therefore tend to be more confident in their approach.
Any high-profile/difficult case will generally be put in front of a DJ.
DJs also sit alone, whereas a magistrates' bench must be composed of at least two people, but that's not regarded as desirable, so it's almost always three.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 16:44
|
Absolutely. Rupert Murdoch is hostile and destructive towards the British Establishment. But he is super-rich, an offshore grandee, which gives him more 'right' to protection than the rest of us.
But the authorities probably want to discourage pie warriors for fairly obvious reasons (one day, the exploding pie...). And of course the pie warrior did make a fool of the security (the stout plod puffing and waddling towards the place after the event, really!) and the powers that be, and their myrmidons, really hate that.
I have mixed feelings about pie throwers. They are quite often helped clandestinely by people with an entrée who don't want to be officially involved, but they are nevertheless risking perhaps being shot or otherwise roughed up. However the 'action' is never hilarious and always somehow embarrassing even for the uninvolved witness. Or so it seems to me.
|
At the end of the day, he thinks assaulting an 80 year old man is ok, Im glad he got a real punishment, cant suspend common decency just because you disagree with someone.
Its not like Murdoch exactly gets glowing press either, so the 'point' has been made many times over already by far more mature methods. Maybe he should try that on Gaddafi, see what he gets.
|
|
I hope he remembers to turn his voicemail off while he's doing porridge. Just in case anyone tries hacking into it.
|
I see this clown's lawyer says he's appealing the sentence - the legal aid gravy train is still running.
It will be interesting to see if the sentence sticks.
I expect the CPS prosecutor will use the 'guidelines not tramlines' line when he outlines the case.
There's no doubt if you or I 'custard pied' a bloke down the pub we wouldn't go to prison.
The appeal will be heard by a judge and two magistrates sitting at a crown court.
In theory, it's the only instance when magistrates can over-rule a crown court judge, because if the pair of them vote one way, the judge has to abide by the decision.
In practice, we always think the magistrates are overawed, and do what the judge tells them.
|
The Magistrate comments on the case today.
thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/
|
...The Magistrate comments on the case today...
I was also surprised at the costs and victim surcharge, which are generally not applied when the defendant is sent to prison.
Apart from anything else, his ability to arrange payment is impaired by being locked up.
|
From the blog:
"It was premeditated and potentially dangerous items were smuggled past security - mercifully they were harmless."
Which potentially dangerous items? If they were potentially dangerous how could they be harmless?
|
|
Yes, slight contradiction there SS. On the subject of the sentence itself perhaps we ought to compare current sentencing 'guidelines' on burglary of people's homes. The magistrates have been directed that they must find reasons to justify a custodial sentence. So shaving foam pie is more deserving of a stretch then? It beggars belief. It should not matter who the victim is, or the publicity gained it's the offence itself that matters. What it really does is highlight the lack of effective security on the occasion itself and no amount of sentencing will make up for that failure.
|
Although I suspect Paul Daniels didn't see it that way.
I wonder if Sooty will be sent to jail for throwing a pizza in PD's mush?
tinyurl.com/3dsb9vm (links to The Telegraph)
|
Iffy,
Was he on Legal Aid ?
The Solicitor is right to appeal in my opinion. From what I've read/heard the recommendation was for a community based sentence. Trouble is this guy made the establishment look stupid. Sending him to prison is a disproportionate response. Served Murdoch right.
|
I think that what makes the sentence look harsh to may is the comparison with other sentences for assault.
I don't know if there was another charge that could have been brought, something that might be akin to "contempt of parliament".
Likewise, if the problem was that he treated the legal process with contempt, then maybe the judge sentencing him for contempt of court.
I think if it has been 200 hours community service for the assault, and 6 weeks for contempt of court, it might have been more easily reconciled in people's minds.
But, instead an assault and harassment charge was brought, and there was no mention of contempt of court (AFAIK), presumably because there was no proof for anything else. After all, he did plead guilty.
I don't think that people should show contempt for the court, or for parliament for that matter, but if there are not actually offences, or if they can't be proved, then it seems a bit much.
Right now, it just looks like "don't mess with the establishment", which people understand, but maybe feel is unfair.
|
|
I have "contempt of Parliament"!
|
...Was he on Legal Aid ?...
Must be, straightforward criminal matter, unless he's very wealthy.
As regards 'serving Murdoch right', he declined to play any part in the prosecution.
And I don't think anyone, let alone an elderly person, deserves to be assaulted.
|
...and there was no mention of contempt of court...
That's because there was none, a parliamentary committee is not a court.
|
>> ...and there was no mention of contempt of court...
>>
>> That's because there was none, a parliamentary committee is not a court.
I was referring to what you said earlier about "disrespecting the court process".
I was suggesting that it wasn't disrespected enough for the judge to hold him in contempt, and I also asked whether there was any potential charge similar to "contempt of parliament", which could have been used alongside the assault charge.
|
|
I understood what you meant SS.
|
...I was referring to what you said earlier about "disrespecting the court process"...
Ah, got it now.
As I'm sure you know, courts don't like defendants who revel in their guilt and try to turn their appearance into a sideshow.
But it's not an offence.
|
Interesting how the original arrest was for one of public order - if the cops had given him a fixer there would have been far less publicity and one less in prison.
On a separate note the security at the hearing must have been very lax.
"What do you have in your bag"
"A paper plate and a can of shaving foam" (assuming it was carried in in kit form)
"carry on"
|
>> If they were potentially dangerous how could they be harmless?
>>
>>
>>
That depends on whether you regard "harmless" as meaning incapable of causing harm, or simply not causing any harm on this particular occasion.
|
>> >> If they were potentially dangerous how could they be harmless?
>>
>> That depends on whether you regard "harmless" as meaning incapable of causing harm, or simply
>> not causing any harm on this particular occasion.
Generally it would mean incapable of causing, or not intended to cause harm, so the blogger's use of the term is a bit stupid.
The guy's intent never changed, so it was never potentially dangerous on the basis of intent, and you could argue that it is not even capable of causing harm (anymore than any other everyday item is).
It is not as if he smuggled a bomb in that failed to go off, or even a gun that he intended to use, but then changed his mind.
Put another way, a pen is "potentially dangerous", if used as a weapon, but if you take it in to parliament to write notes, it is nonsense to say that you have taken in a "potentially dangerous article that mercifully turned out to be harmless".
|
I can just about understand the fascination with silly legal technicalities, but I don't share it. They can discharge the guy absolutely or give him six months in the slammer. So what's new?
I am interested though in the official attitude to pie warriors.
Pieing is a form of non-lethal - very non-lethal - assassination. But that absolute quality is what gives the great and good a little frisson. It's only a couple of whiskers away from the real thing.
The other thing that must annoy all levels of the justice system is that a successful pieing makes the security look very naff indeed. 'If they can't stop that clown, how can they stop Anwar al-Awlaki and his evil hosts?' you can almost hear people thinking.
So thy have to jump up and down on these people. But they can't do it too heavily because that would make them look stupid, lovely though it might feel.
Actually I think pieing makes everyone look a bit stupid. But I wouldn't listen to me if I were a pie guerilla.
|
>> But I wouldn't listen to me if I were a pie guerilla.
Said pie guerilla's are probably thinking '6 months for a pie? Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb - I'll take my uzi next time' :)
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 4 Aug 11 at 08:06
|
I think for the gesture to be valid it has to be a real custard pie.
Pies made with shaving foam just don't have the class or impact of the real thing.
Rotten eggs of course are also traditional, but they are perhaps more appropriate in a riotous mob situation, and are not the weapon of choice for a discerning left wing ineffectual.
Anyway they don't make rotten eggs any more.
|
Oh Noooooo, we're back to cooking again.
Pat
|
|
Never mind the cooking - where can I get that wallpaper?
|
>> Oh Noooooo, we're back to cooking again.
>>
>> Pat
I LIKE cooking.
Gazpacho & roast duck today!
SWMBO made the pud and the tea-time stuff for SIL & BIL!
|
>> Anyway they don't make rotten eggs any more.
Yes they do - they are called "politicians".
|
Seems one shaving foam pie now equals four weeks of porridge.
Sentence reduced on appeal:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14414883
|
|
So the sentence was reduced because he pleaded guilty. But he was caught red handed. He could hardly say not guilty could he?
|
|
Of course he could - its his right.
|
There's often an element of face-saving (not Rupert's in this case) involved in appeals.
The judge hearing the appeal says a few short words to justify the decision.
He said the lower court did not give sufficient credit for a guilty plea.
In other words, he's saying the original district judge (DJ) arrived at the correct sentence.
It may be semantics to the outside world, but in court environs the DJ's face is saved to a degree because the senior judge did not say: "You made a complete balls of it."
|
Reduced to 4 weeks: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14414883
"Judge Anthony Pitts said the district judge who sentenced the 26-year-old on Tuesday had not given enough credit for May-Bowles' guilty plea. "
|
1 shaving foam pie = 6 weeks of porridge - Meldrew
