And makes legal history as the first person convicted under the new Bribery Act.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15689869
|
|
Interesting that the bribery offence only gets him three years, the longer of the concurrent stretches is for misconduct in public office.
|
|
why bother to try him for both? what on earth did it achieve?
|
>> why bother to try him for both? what on earth did it achieve?
>>
Well, Zero, very simple:
"Patel was sentenced to three years for bribery and six years for misconduct in a public office"
So both offences have been entered into the record, so can be used as a precedent in future cases of the same nature.
I'm sure M'learned members will have something to add on this.
|
And what did that achieve? A precedent for what? Why bother going for a lesser offence, carrying a smaller sentence to be served concurrently when the offence is virtually the same - Its achieved nothing, apart from extra expense on the public purse.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 18 Nov 11 at 16:33
|
>> And what did that achieve? Why bother going for a lesser offence, carrying a smaller
>> sentence to be served concurrently.
>>
>> Its achieved nothing, apart from extra expense on the public purse.
No, it set a precedent of sentence for the lesser offence - ie bribery.
" became the first person convicted under the Bribery Act "
|
>> No, it set a precedent of sentence for the lesser offence - ie bribery.
>> " became the first person convicted under the Bribery Act "
That should have been done as a single stand alone offence.
|
>>
>> >> No, it set a precedent of sentence for the lesser offence - ie bribery.
>> >> " became the first person convicted under the Bribery Act "
>>
>> That should have been done as a single stand alone offence.
>>
No, because that becomes double jeopardy running both charges at the same time.
|
|
No I mean not charge him at all with the bribery offence. It wasn't required, The more serious charge should prevail.
|
>> No I mean not charge him at all with the bribery offence. It wasn't required,
>> The more serious charge should prevail.
>>
Yep, but the two go hand in hand, and if they miss with one, they'll get him with t'other.
A bit like a legal double-barrel shotgun, to be honest.
and as I wrote beforehand, this one goes on the statute books, so I'm sure the i's were dotted, and the t's crossed.
|
|
But it has no deterrent factor because it has no consequences.
|
>> But it has no deterrent factor because it has no consequences.
>>
Yes it does - get convicted of bribery (on its own), you go down for three.
Think of 'fixers' who are the middlemen between public officials and the public. Say ... a driving instructor who has a scam going with the examiner... or a dodgy MOT tester who hands a few sovs to the top boys, in order to keep his MOT status.
|
>> >> But it has no deterrent factor because it has no consequences.
>> >>
>> Yes it does - get convicted of bribery (on its own), you go down for
>> three.
Not if its mixed with a go down for 6 year public office offence. The three years concurrent is meaningless
>> Think of 'fixers' who are the middlemen between public officials and the public. Say ...
>> a driving instructor who has a scam going with the examiner... or a dodgy MOT
>> tester who hands a few sovs to the top boys, in order to keep his
>> MOT status.
EXACTLY, thats who the offence is named at, where the public office offence does not count.
Mixing both, as they have done is a waste of time.
|
>> Not if its mixed with a go down for 6 year public office offence. The
>> three years concurrent is meaningless
>> ...and...
>> EXACTLY, thats who the offence is named at, where the public office offence does not
>> count.
>>
>> Mixing both, as they have done is a waste of time.
>>
OH, FFS! We are singing from the same hymnsheet. The offence was cut-and-dried, so the bloke got charged with both, convicted of both, and got both sentences. Now it is on the books. POW!
You think some law-bod didn't work this one out beforehand, to PUT it into the statutes?
No waste of time at all.
|
We are not singing from the same hymn sheet at all in any way. You use one or the other charge as appropriate NOT both,
Its like charging someone with causing death by dangerous driving AND murder for the same incident.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 18 Nov 11 at 17:17
|
Use both. If they cock up one, get him on the other.
he's guilty of BOTH offences, not just the 'worst' one.
EG: Zero, I say in publci that you are a complete (insert your most offensive term here), which is crimen injuria/slander, and I smash you in the face.
So, after the face-smashing, which one are you going to nail me for? Calling you a XXXX, or the assault. If I get off on the assault charge, then the other one falls away automatically. Double jeopardy.
*Bastige! Your edit re charging for dangerous driving and murder refers. Exactly what happens - if you DON'T get proven for murder, they get you with the lesser (and alternate) charge of dangerous driving.
Can some legal type confirm - does English law allow for an alternate? ie Charged with XXXX, alternately YYY.
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Fri 18 Nov 11 at 17:24
|
>> why bother to try him for both? what on earth did it achieve?
Iffy will be along in a mo but I suspect they'd get him for the lesser offence even if the more serious one fell for any reason.
|
>> >> why bother to try him for both? what on earth did it achieve?
>>
>> Iffy will be along in a mo but I suspect they'd get him for the
>> lesser offence even if the more serious one fell for any reason.
Dont wash, if they have evidence for one, its the same for the other. If one fails they both fail.
|
...Iffy will be along in a mo but I suspect they'd get him for the lesser offence even if the more serious one fell for any reason...
A few points spring to mind.
The benchmark for the CPS is whether it's in the public interest to pursue a charge and is there a realistic chance of conviction?
It's clearly in the public interest to pursue a charge against a court official taking bribes.
While I agree the charges stem from the same overall course of conduct, they may not be the same.
There were dozens of incidents, in some he may have took the bribe, but did nothing, other than keep the money, or maybe gave it back - bribery, but no misconduct in public office.
In other incidents, he may have altered/not entered some records, but not taken any money - misconduct, but no bribery.
Even more likely, he may have done both in most cases, but in some the CPS only had evidence of bribery, and in others only had evidence of misconduct.
Also, it's a new Act.
With new legislation, you never quite know how it will play out until you run a case.
I imagine the CPS would be wary of going to trial on just the Bribery Act because if the defence found some flaw in its wording and those charges fell by the wayside, the prosecution would be left high and dry.
|
|
Could we not try our troughing M.P.s under the heading of misconduct in public office?
|
>> Could we not try our troughing M.P.s under the heading of misconduct in public office?
>>
And leave the House of Commons empty?
|
|
Good idea............. son!
|
|
Taking bribes he made a mistake he got caught.>:).
|
Since they seem to have identified the people who actually bribed him, will they also be prosecuting them? I would have thought that the deterrent effect on the public at large would be well served with a number of high profile prosecutions.
The Judges remarks seem well thought out and balanced, are all sentences backed up with a similar quality of published remarks?
|
>> are all sentences backed up with
>> a similar quality of published remarks?
>>
A selection are published on the judiciary website www.judiciary.gov.uk/ - mostly those that are high profile or attract media comment for other reasons.
The British and Irish Legal Information Institute www.bailii.org/ is more comprehensive but focus is on Civil, Family and Administrative justice rather than criminal cases (though criminal appeals are reported).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 21 Nov 11 at 13:22
|
Hadn't appreciated until I read a link in the Guardian's legal bit that the guy was exposed by the Sun. Real investigative journalism for once:
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3944349/Clerk-nabbed-by-The-Sun-is-jailed.html
|
Court clerk took bribes from motoring offenders - Ian (Cape Town)
