|
Re: Starmer’s chronicles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Actually no it wasn’t.
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/gui...l-orientation/
For culpability a lenient judge would gone for “Lesser Culpability”
What she did was reckless, no doubt.
And for Harm
What she said was not direct, it was an open statement “for all I care”, and she didn’t broadcast it widely others did that.
It was well within the Judges gift to sentence her to a community order. IMO the judge was swayed by Starmer’s rhetoric and gave an overly harsh sentence to make an example of her. |
You are making assumptions regarding "offence category" and "harm" - this explains why the Judge acted the way he did…
https://barristerblogger.com/2025/05...inst-sentence/
Quote:
The categorisation of an offence is determined by a combination of the offender’s culpability (graded from A – C with A being the most serious) and the harm caused by the offence (either 1 or 2, with 1 being the more serious).
At the sentencing hearing the Crown Mrs Connolly’s solicitor advocate accepted that she had “intended to incite serious violence.” That gave the judge no option but to place her offence in Category A for culpability.
|
https://i0.wp.com/barristerblogger.c...aled.png?ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/barristerblogger.c...aled.png?ssl=1
Quote:
Again the judge had no option but to place her case into category 1. The obvious (even if it was not the only possible) meaning of her tweet was to encourage the burning of hotels; but even if that was not so a tweet that was viewed 310,000 times was, unarguably, “widely disseminated.”
Those categorisations effectively forced Judge Inman towards a “starting point” of 3 years imprisonment.
|
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Last edited by Hugh; 28-08-2025 at 14:04.
|