New Boss at the prison

[Max Power]

7 minutes ago, manxy said:

When you watch UK Police programmes on TV and see offenders drive faster than the speed limits or burgle, sell drugs etc and then only getting a suspended sentence or community work, then that must be difficult for the Police to understand the leniency of the award. 

Is that one of the differences of us and the UK? Are they too soft regards punishments and offenders now believing that they'll get let off?

It may also be that the UK prison system doesn't suit the nature of the crimes committed? Prisoners can come out worse than when they went in.

[manxy]

Do they separate prisoners from across with ours as that might stop interactions and the passing on of new tricks or connections?

[joebean]

1 hour ago, manxy said:

Do they separate prisoners from across with ours as that might stop interactions and the passing on of new tricks or connections?

No

[gettafa]

Front page Isle of Man Examiner

'Thug Life' gets the front page star treatment.

 

[hissingsid]

Gutter press.

[CharlieBrown]

1 hour ago, Cheesy Wheezy said:

More apt photography perhaps. 

Totally harsh on shrek.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, gettafa said:

Front page Isle of Man Examiner

'Thug Life' gets the front page star treatment.

 

Old news if you read Manx Forums.  @Augustus linked to the judgment a week ago, in the other thread and the date of the judgment is 16 July.  In any case the after-titles of last week's episode revealed that Goldsmith had appealed and had his sentence reduced (though it didn't say how much).  So this is typical IOM Newspapers splashing with something that everyone else who was paying attention already knew for ages.  It's similar to when they treat as a giant revelation some Tynwald answer published a fortnight ago or an FoI from last month and then breathlessly headline it (without any further reporting) as if they were the first people reporting Watergate.

If you read the judgment it concludes that while the conviction was perfectly sound, the sentence was a little too long (Goldsmith had appealed against both):

Quote

67. For the above reasons, the Appellant's sentence of three and a half years' custody was manifestly excessive. We grant the Appellant permission to appeal against sentence under section 30(5) of the 1993 Act and allow the appeal under section 33(4)(a). We therefore quash such sentence passed at trial and pass, in substitution, an extended sentence of four and a half years' custody, comprising a custodial term of three years and an extension period of 18 months for licence purposes.

The reason is that the the sentence for the degree of injury that was inflicted[1] would only justify a maximum of three years for the offence of unlawful wounding as opposed to longer sentences given in some of the other Manx cases they discuss in the para previous to this one:

Quote

55. In our judgment these Manx cases addressed above would suggest a starting point for the Appellant of between two and a half and three years. There is nothing that would justify the sentencing Deemster in going outside this guideline. In the light of the Appellant's record, which we also view as "abysmal", the sentence would be at the top end of the bracket. That record included a wounding with intent (three years' custody), unlawful wounding (22 months' custody), unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm (15 months' custody), assaults or assaults occasioning actual bodily harm (10 months, 62 days, 30 months, six months, 22 months and six months' custody), the use or threat of unlawful violence (150 days, four months and three months' custody), use of threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour (four months' custody) and breach of the peace (two months, 90 days and 20 weeks' custody), together with the breaches of court orders referred to at paragraph 45(13) above. Even in the absence of any mitigation this would produce a sentence no harsher than a custodial term of three years, plus any appropriate extension period.

Though as you can see they gave the maximum they could within the 'bracket'.   In actual fact - and despite what the newspaper says - it  probably made no difference to the time he spent in prison.  He would be considered for release on licence after half his sentence and decreasing that from 21 months to 18 months would make little difference given that he had already served 20 months on remand by the time he was convicted[2] and the appeal was delivered 26  months after he was arrested.

 

[1]  According to the judgment about the only time they agree with Goldsmith is when they say: 60. We agree with the Appellant that Mr Garvie's injuries were not the most serious: a laceration to the forehead requiring six sutures, bleeding from the nose and bruising to the face, including the left cheek and left eye.  Which is bad, but not as serious as things like broken jaws, very sustained attacks or hitting someone carrying a child, described in the other cases.

[2]  For once the incredible slowness wasn't just due to the AG's Office being laggardly in getting things to Court: 3. The Appellant's retrial in January 2019 followed a trial in July 2018 which had to be aborted (when the Appellant was represented), and one in October 2018 where the jury was unable to agree (when the Appellant represented himself).  Though some might say that if you need two attempts to put away Goldie when he's providing evidence for the old saying that 'Anyone who represents himself in Court has a fool for a client', then it doesn't say much for your forensic skills.

[gettafa]

You're absolutely right of course Roger. It's old news. Except since the judgment there is a TV show 'starring' the 'Thug Life' chap.

And I see it not so much as 

11 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Gutter press.

but gutter Prison Governor and his mate the Minister, Home Secretary Malarkey.

A simple very straightforward question needs to be asked - WHY was this TV show filmed.

Why? (and from that flows further can of worms question).

[thesultanofsheight]

3 minutes ago, gettafa said:

Why? (and from that flows further can of worms question).

Here’s a free MHK question to anyone who wants it:

”Can the Minister of Home Affairs confirm whether his department received any form of payment or other benefit from ITV for the filming of the Best Little Jail in Britain series. And if so how much, and where has the money been allocated to?”

I find it hard to believe ITV gets filming rights that it then sells advertising around for free. 

 

[gettafa]

There's something more important  than money to these people, and that's having their ego boosted and maybe a quick interview on the Telly.

The film lot would have been all over Malarkey for this. He would have been puffed up like a barrage balloon spouting his thoughts. Of course the film crew would have recognised the sort of guy he is immediately and pandered to his desires and kept him feeling big - anything to get their way for the entertainment industry.

[Roger Mexico]

48 minutes ago, gettafa said:

The film lot would have been all over Malarkey for this. He would have been puffed up like a barrage balloon spouting his thoughts. Of course the film crew would have recognised the sort of guy he is immediately and pandered to his desires and kept him feeling big - anything to get their way for the entertainment industry.

I'm not really sure that Malarkey has the main blame on this one.  The 'making of' article from the producers doesn't mention him - the only contact they have is the Governor.  Also I think that Malarkey was ill for quite a lot of last year when they were filming - he was absent from Tynwald a lot.   So it's the Governor and maybe the CEO of DHA would have had what oversight there was.

[gettafa]

I disagree Roger.

See the head banner in the newspaper clip on the other thread:

Television: Home Affairs Minister wants Britain to see how 'forward-thinking' the Jurby jail is.

The question remains, loud and clear: WHY?

[thesultanofsheight]

1 hour ago, gettafa said:

The film lot would have been all over Malarkey for this. He would have been puffed up like a barrage balloon spouting his thoughts. Of course the film crew would have recognised the sort of guy he is immediately and pandered to his desires and kept him feeling big - anything to get their way for the entertainment industry.

Not sure I  agree on Malarkey; as RM says he’s been really ill which is reasonably well known from his attendance in Tynwald and I doubt he was that active in setting it up or approving it. It will have been lined up by the DHA CEO and the Prison Governor I’d say. I would also sniff that it has some money at its root as well as fame and glory. 

The question needs to be asked. 

[gettafa]

It's pointless even hinting at the money angle,

Regarding Bill, he must have had some input - see newspaper header on t'other thread.

Who is the deputy Minister for Home Affairs?

[thesultanofsheight]

3 minutes ago, gettafa said:

It's pointless even hinting at the money angle,

Why?