John Wright

And Juan Watterson SHK is against that. Wasn’t he Home Affairs before he got his wig? Tells you all you need to know about ehh we’ve not had regular inspections..

It’s definitive unless it’s challenged successfully

I am.

Sentenced in 2003 and on remand from 9 February 2002. There was no minimum tariffs sentencing requirement in Manx law in 2003, at least I don’t think so. I think one was imposed later. After he was transferred. But I can’t find what it was. If it was 20 years it dates from 9 February 2002 and he would thus be within 2 years 4 months for parole purposes.

It’s more to do with history and how things developed. In the case of highways maintainable at public expense it’s not the law but the history and records. Before 1750 ( approx - I can’t be bothered going looking up the legislation to give precise dates ) roads from place to place were maintainable by the owners on either side. You got a right to pass over your neighbours bit of the road in exchange for maintaining your bit. OK in small communities and villages, not so good over long distances. But people didn’t travel much. Just the lord and his servants, officers and militia. Thats

Then that needs primary legislation, whether it’s an increase or reduction. I’m not aware that anyone has ever been sentenced to the statutory maximum, or anywhere near, for any drug case sentencing. You can search the English sentencing guidelines and the range and things that mitigate and exacerbate from a sentencing perspective. The Manx guidelines are in R v Caldwell Camp, court of appeal judgment and explained in relation to certain aspects in a High Bailiffs decision in HMAG v Jordan. Both in Judgments on Line. My reading of the recently reported case is that Deem

Yes. The application by Ballaseyr for an injunction was withdrawn on Friday against the DoI giving an undertaking not to do any work to open it up. That’s was to last pending resolution of the dispute. I don’t think there’d be any real objection to persons on foot, pedal cycles, or even horses. It’s motor bikes and quads, I suspect.

It’s not that easy. The tithe and asylum plans seem to indicate it was a quarter land road. So that’s a private right belonging to the frontagers, ie the people owning on either side. It may have served a small holding that no longer exists and either side of the lane were in separate ownership. So three landowners had rights. It’s now all in one ownership. So if it was a quarter land road and is now in single ownership it will have ceased to exist - you can’t have these types of rights over your own land. It appears on the definitive map of highways under the 1986 Act, but there is some

A highway maintainable at public expense is publicly owned. The public can use it without the need for a right of way. A right of way, public or private is over the land belonging to a private third party.

Tynwald sets sentencing parameters, there are few minimum sentences and lots of maximum ones. Within the parameters set by legislation the judiciary have wide ranging discretion. Every so often the Court of General Gaol, or the Appeal Court, and occasionally the High Bailiffs set out factors to be taken into account, aggravating or mitigating and sentencing ranges. They also have the English sentencing guidelines. Nothing to do with secondary legislation. From time to time judges believe the sentencing guidance issued years ago is no longer appropriate for current conditions. Th

Well, just been doorstepped. A nice Eastern European guy and a pleasant Irish lady with a clip board of names and addresses. Apparently the names are randomly generated each morning and hand written on the form. They didn’t ask to see any ID. Apparently they’ve got 1600 in quarantine on the list. Ive got 48 hours to go. And of course it’s not 14 days. It expires at midday on the 14th day. It can be as much as 13.5 days or as little as 12.5 days. Day of arrival counts as day one. So arriving at 23.59 day one only lasts a minute.

It’s really difficult. We moved to the current way of calculating driving bans 25 years ago. Tinkered with it since. Mainly setting statutory minima to punish alcohol test refusers get longer sentences than those who do provide a simple and for different levels of alcohol and repeat offenders. The original method was to make each ban consecutive. Ie add on a new ban to the end of any existing bans. So you’d end up with some offenders banned for 10, 12, 15 + years. No chance of rehabilitation. Nothing really to lose. So it was neither a punishment nor deterrent. So now a ban starts th

It’s not a PRoW

What makes you think anything in those judgments has changed in the propositions I set out above relevant to parole hearings when approaching the fixed minimum tariff of a life sentence

Security, or scrutiny?