Post by nickd on Aug 19, 2011 22:24:39 GMT 1
Of late, we've heard a lot about the riots and the punishment of offenders; - but are the punishments just?
A 24 year old mother with 2 children to look after was made an example of and got 5 months for handling a pair of shorts looted from the recent riot scenes; - she wasn't there, she was no where near the riots.
Some people seemed to gloat over the sentence; - jubilant that she got sent down. Thankfully a Crown Court judge saw the injustice on appeal and released the 24 year old mother.
The appeal judge said the custodial sentence was wrong in principle, he recognised she has no previous convictions and had entered an early guilty plea.
Here's what happened as her sentence was overturned
Ursula Nevin freed after handling stolen shorts [/u]
A woman has been freed from jail after what is understood to be the first successful appeal against a sentence in connection with last week's riots.
Mother-of-two Ursula Nevin was jailed for five months by a district judge in Manchester, on 13 August. Nevin, 24, had admitted accepting a pair of shorts looted from a city centre shop by a friend. Judge Andrew Gilbart QC set aside the prison sentence because Nevin had not actually taken part in the riots.
Hearing the appeal at Manchester Crown Court, Judge Gilbart ordered Nevin to do 75 hours of voluntary work instead.
He said the initial sentence was "wrong in principle".
Nevin was in bed at the time of the riots but her lodger Gemma Corbett helped herself to clothing and footwear from the Vans store and took them back to the house they shared in Stretford.
Nevin, who pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, had chosen a pair of shorts for herself from the stolen items.
'Circle of hell'
The district judge at Manchester Magistrates' Court had told her she was supposed to be a role model to her sons and criticised her for not speaking up about the stolen goods. Judge Gilbart, the Recorder of Manchester, said: "Ursula Nevin did not go into Manchester city centre. "We regard it as wrong in principle that she was subject to a custodial sentence. "She must pay some sentence because she knew where the goods had come from".
"Seventy-five hours of unpaid work appears to be the appropriate figure bearing in mind the guilty plea."
'Say no'
The judge had previously indicated a distinction could be made for people receiving stolen goods who had not been physically present during the disorder in Manchester city centre and Salford on 9 August. Addressing Nevin, who has no previous convictions, he said: "You must have found yourself, in the circumstances of the last week, trapped in a circle of hell. "The way you never get into that situation again is to show the courage to say 'no'.
"I am sure the courts will not be troubled by you again. Leave now and look after your children."
Why on earth was such a harsh sentenced ever dished out in the first place? But, let's not leave it there; - let's make a comparison with other offenders who've stolen, they're thieves just the same and you'd think their sentence and treatment would be that much harsher by virtue of their public office.
Let's look at the case of a Lord, those who make the laws, and see what happened when he got caught looting public funds. His crime was much greater, his postion of power was far more than the mother sent down for 5 months.
Read what happened to the Lord...
Lord Hanningfield loses appeal against expenses conviction
Court of appeal rejects application from Hanningfield, a former Tory peer jailed for nine months
Lord Hanningfield, the former Tory peer jailed for fraudulently claiming nearly £14,000 in parliamentary expenses.
"A former Tory peer jailed after being found guilty of fiddling his parliamentary expenses has lost an appeal against his conviction."
Lord Hanningfield, 70, was found guilty of six counts of false accounting following a trial at Chelmsford crown court, Essex in May and jailed for nine months on 1 July.
At the court of appeal in London on Wednesday, Lord Justice Hughes, Mr Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Blake rejected his application for permission to appeal and said the proposed grounds were "unarguable".
The main argument put forward for Hanningfield, who was not in court, was that the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the "mental element" in his defence, which was that he believed he was entitled to do what he did as it was the accepted custom and practice of the House of Lords.
But Hughes said: "We are entirely satisfied that, however sad the background to this case may be, and however sad may be the end of what was otherwise a distinguished career in public service, this jury did receive an accurate direction in law.
"It faced, and had to face, the question of whether it believed or rejected the defendant's assertions of belief and, sadly, it is plain that it rejected them."
Hanningfield was accused of falsely claiming nearly £14,000 for overnight stays in London when he was not in the capital.
Passing sentence, Mr Justice Saunders said the former Lords opposition frontbencher and leader of Essex county council would now be partly remembered as a "benefits cheat".
Elsewhere, it's been reported that the Lord carried on claiming council expenses and hired expensive cars whilst with Essex Council, he had an expensive barrister in his crown court trial and then went onto try and appeal in a case where the Court of Appeal said there could be no argument over his conviction.
Meanwhile the BBC has learned the authority spent nearly £700,000 on chauffeur-driven cars over the past five years.
Lord Hanningfield, who appeared in court under his name Paul White, was convicted in May of six counts of false accounting relating to nearly £14,000 of claims.
He fraudulently claimed for overnight stays in London when he had actually returned home to Essex, and also for train fares and car mileage.
The Tory peer, who led the Conservative-controlled council from 2001 until his arrest in 2010, was jailed at Maidstone Crown Court on 1 July.
A police investigation is now under way into his expenses at the council.
'An abuse'
His use of a chauffeur-driven car to ferry him from the council to the House of Lords focused attention on the authority's chauffeur service. A Freedom of Information request by BBC Look East revealed the council paid £677,733 to run chauffeur-driven cars over the past five years.
Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester Bob Russell said: "Frankly, I think it was an abuse. Essex did not need three chauffeur-driven cars. "We know that because they've now cut it down to one."
Mike Mackrory, Liberal Democrat deputy opposition leader, said: "I find it quite extraordinary and one really wonders what on earth the journeys were and how that could be justified?"
The council now has one chauffeur-driven car, a Jaguar, used mainly by chairman Rodney Bass. He told the BBC that if the prime minister could have a car, so should he, because of the number of functions he attends.
It's beyond comprehension that Hanningford got a high cost lawyer, ran up all the cost of a trial and appeal and got just 4 months more than a 24 year old mother with children received for handling a pair of stolen shorts. It's all very well government saying that it needs to make an example of people caught up in public disorder, but how can it not do the same when it comes to those in positions of law making authority? Instead it turns a blind eye to those in high office who steal more of the tax payer's money, run up huge legal bills and haven't the grace to admit they were wrong.
What's more he escaped a great deal of the media glare which should have been focused on him. In the 24 year old mother's case there were no fancy lawyers, little time for reports, just hurried 'name and shame' justice which ended in jail. Thankfully, the appeal judges saw sense and kept Hanningford where he belonged and released the mother from a place where she should never have been sent in the first place.
To call it 'fiddling' when it comes to parliamentary expenses undermines the nature of the theft, a custodial sentence was appropriate; - but there's no way it was in the case of the mother at the top of this article.
How on earth can this be comparable and equal justice?
What do others think?
* Just as a footnote to this one. In Essex Council's glossy leaflets, read their policy on reducing their carbon footprint..
"As part of a comprehensive range of measures to reduce the council’s carbon footprint, the council is working with the Energy Savings Trust to tackle issues surrounding car usage by many of its 48,000 employees. The aim is to reduce business miles, when
using lease cars or the staff’s own vehicles, by 10% and in
so doing to cut carbon emissions by 3% year on year.
Presumably that doesn't apply to the chauffeur driven cars and the enormous carbon foot print they left behind as councillor's roared off to attend to 'other business; and no doubt a few nice civic dignitary events too.
You couldn't make this kind of stuff up!