Jump to content

Weak sentencing…


Manx Bean
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Here's another light sentence. 

22 months for indecent assault (not sure how it's not actually rape)... the UK would have been a 6 year sentence

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/offender-who-assaulted-woman-while-she-slept-would-have-got-a-longer-jail-sentence-in-the-uk-548795?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1653811358

Yep. That appalled me when I saw it. Maybe there is some valid reasoning behind the short sentence, but to my mind it was rape and should have been prosecuted and sentenced as such.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Here's another light sentence. 

22 months for indecent assault (not sure how it's not actually rape)... the UK would have been a 6 year sentence

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/offender-who-assaulted-woman-while-she-slept-would-have-got-a-longer-jail-sentence-in-the-uk-548795?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1653811358

John will know the details better, but I think rape is defined quite narrowly under current legislation and sentences were lower for quite a lot of things.  A new Sexual Offences Act was passed last year, but I don't think it has come into force yet and even if it had, this offence took place in December 2020 which would be before it was passed and people can only be punished under the law as it was at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 0bserver said:

Here's another light sentence. 

22 months for indecent assault (not sure how it's not actually rape)... the UK would have been a 6 year sentence

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/offender-who-assaulted-woman-while-she-slept-would-have-got-a-longer-jail-sentence-in-the-uk-548795?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1653811358

I found this confusing:

“Deemster Cook described the offence as ‘disgusting’, adding that ‘any woman is entitled to say no at any time, you chose to ignore that, perhaps out of naivety’. 

He did however concede that the offence was not predatory or malicious.”

I must be missing something, but I don’t really get how it could be neither predatory nor malicious.

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, craggy_steve said:

Yep. That appalled me when I saw it. Maybe there is some valid reasoning behind the short sentence, but to my mind it was rape and should have been prosecuted and sentenced as such.

 

11 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

John will know the details better, but I think rape is defined quite narrowly under current legislation and sentences were lower for quite a lot of things.  A new Sexual Offences Act was passed last year, but I don't think it has come into force yet and even if it had, this offence took place in December 2020 which would be before it was passed and people can only be punished under the law as it was at the time.

The report isn’t detailed. In fact it’s poorly written, and the one thing I can check on is wrong, so it’s unreliable. ( they got the name of the defence advocate wrong ).

Its up to AG prosecutions what to charge. You wouldn’t charge indecent assault if it was rape. That suggests, as does the reference to the English offence of assault by penetration, that there was no penile insertion, the insertion was digital. That’s my best guess, That couldn’t be charged as rape.

Deemsters can’t sentence for an offence other than the offence charged/convicted. The sentence is within guideline range for indecent assault. The offence took place before our new Sexual Offences Act. When that’s in force it’d be charged under the new provisions, which have higher sentencing guidelines.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Who writes the police Twitter contributions? Is it a dedicated position or are all officers able to put their own tales on? I'd guess at the former. I don't care much for the character of the reports on crimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
33 minutes ago, Banker said:

This seems the other extreme, jail for a 5k attempt at fraud but if you claim benefits for many years & rip off taxpayers you get fines payable over 50 years from benefits 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/man-who-altered-home-valuation-during-divorce-jailed/

I'd say that was a worse crime than some of the benefit fraud cases that go to court - the guy was trying to con someone close to him out of thousands. The impact of doing a couple of hours undeclared to pay bills is shared between all taxpayers so individually costs us pennies. Having to pay back so much a week plus a fine out of sod all, is a massive impact on the individual each and every week. 

However, the reason this guy got prison is nothing to do with fraud. It's because he lied to the court and falsified documents - they don't like that. Judge said it "struck at the heart of the administration of justice". Which really means don't take the piss out of us.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Declan said:

I'd say that was a worse crime than some of the benefit fraud cases that go to court - the guy was trying to con someone close to him out of thousands. The impact of doing a couple of hours undeclared to pay bills is shared between all taxpayers so individually costs us pennies. Having to pay back so much a week plus a fine out of sod all, is a massive impact on the individual each and every week. 

However, the reason this guy got prison is nothing to do with fraud. It's because he lied to the court and falsified documents - they don't like that. Judge said it "struck at the heart of the administration of justice". Which really means don't take the piss out of us.

He should have just fucked about with meta data at an employment tribunal instead. That just seems to get left in the long grass, no questions asked. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 0bserver said:

He should have just fucked about with meta data at an employment tribunal instead. That just seems to get left in the long grass, no questions asked. 

Isn't there going to be a hearing, or something, about it in August? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...