Child rapist released... - Page 2

heero_yuy · 10-12-2014, 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

How many police officers would there have to be on patrol, in order to catch him about to commit another offence? It's impossible.

Indeed, the same applies to all those other potential offenders out there. We can never afford to have enough police to stop all crime just as we can never finance an NHS that meets all demands or expectations.

**Damien** · 10-12-2014, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Correct - however AFAIK had he not served an appropriate length of time under the law as it was, he could have been made to remain in jail today. He has been released because, the indeterminate sentence being unlawful, it had to be replaced with one that *was* lawful. And the lawful sentence for the crime he committed, under the law as it was at the time he committed it, was around 4 years. Under our current early release/probation rules, that equates to 2 years behind bars, then supervision by the probation service afterwards.

OK. My interpretation was that the current judge didn't have the scope to give a new sentence but as the original sentence was invalid it had to be overturned. 4 years seems shocking low as a maximum sentence for indecently assaulting a child.

**Chris** · 10-12-2014, 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

OK. My interpretation was that the current judge didn't have the scope to give a new sentence but as the original sentence was invalid it had to be overturned. 4 years seems shocking low as a maximum sentence for indecently assaulting a child.

I'm not sure it is the maximum sentence. A whole range of factors are taken into account when determining the length of a sentence. But it might be.

It's important to remember that the conviction has not been overturned here. It is the original sentence that has been overturned. He is guilty and it was legitimate to jail him. Whether any detailed process needed to be gone through in order to redefine his sentence, given that he had already spent 2 years inside, I don't know. I would guess that the judge did go through all that, but as it's mere detail, compared to the spectacle of this dangerous man being released, I wouldn't be surprised if nobody bothered to report that part.

TheDaddy · 10-12-2014, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Because that was the sentence available for the crime, at the time he committed it. Without having looked at it in detail, I'm guessing he has probably had the equivalent a 4 year sentence with automatic early release.

Why is he getting automatic early release?

nomadking · 10-12-2014, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Why is he getting automatic early release?

The new sentence was 3 years. He was originally sentenced in 2012, so depending on when in 2012 and how long he was on remand, that could add up to 3 years. We are near the end of 2014, so that is 2014+2013+however long in 2012, making over 2 years.

alanbjames · 10-12-2014, 15:51

Stories like this annoy the hell out of me.

A friend of mine married a guy almost 2 years ago after being together for 3 years and having two kids by him. A year passed and she found evidence he had been taking images naked of her oldest son who was 8 by her first husband who had died.

Instead of going down and having a prison sentence, he gets access rights twice a month to his two kids who are 2 and 5 for 1 hour with Social Services. On top of this he has a son bu his first marriage who at the time of the investigation was 15 who has special needs refused to answer any questions by police, social services or his mum incase his daddy hurt him again which makes them think there may have been abuse but cant prove it.

**Chris** · 10-12-2014, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Why is he getting automatic early release?

Because under the rules prevailing at the time of his conviction, he was entitled to it. There are proposals to change this for serious and dangerous offences. The Criminal Courts and Justice Bill proposed to end automatic early release in certain cases. It hasn't become law yet.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

The new sentence was 3 years. He was originally sentenced in 2012, so depending on when in 2012 and how long he was on remand, that could add up to 3 years. We are near the end of 2014, so that is 2014+2013+however long in 2012, making over 2 years.

That would make sense - early release falls due once two thirds of the sentence is served, not half as I thought earlier.

TheDaddy · 10-12-2014, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Because under the rules prevailing at the time of his conviction, he was entitled to it. There are proposals to change this for serious and dangerous offences. The Criminal Courts and Justice Bill proposed to end automatic early release in certain cases. It hasn't become law yet.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

That would make sense - early release falls due once two thirds of the sentence is served, not half as I thought earlier.

Entitled to it no matter how bad he has been in prison, how rehabilitated he is or how much danger he still poses, so much for justice

**Chris** · 10-12-2014, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Entitled to it no matter how bad he has been in prison, how rehabilitated he is or how much danger he still poses, so much for justice

No, in very serious cases it was never an absolute entitlement, in the sense that an application had to be made, rather than it being completely automatic, but I get the impression that was normally a formality.

As I said, the rules are changing.

11-12-2014, 01:27

4 years for raping a kid is pathetic in itself although given how many politicians might have been paedophiles in years gone by maybe self interest stopped them implementing meaningful punishments. Least this guys photo and name are out hopefully he'll trip and hit his head on a kerb five or six times.

Derek · 11-12-2014, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

How many police officers would there have to be on patrol, in order to catch him about to commit another offence? It's impossible.

Except the Police don't only patrol. Public protection units and their like do a hell of a lot of work with potential offenders above and beyond what probation officers can do. In short they prevent a lot of offences from dangerous people who aren't in prison.

With more pressure being put on Police budgets and 999 calls being the priority it's inevitable some in these departments will be returned to uniformed shifts and more offenders will slip through the net.