Tuesday 30 August 2011
Arsehole Justice: Head of Humberside Police wonders why justice isn'...
Arsehole Justice: Shy 19 year old woman of good character could go t...
Arsehole Justice: Social media turns everybody into wankers.
It's as simple as that. As soon as anybody gets involved in social media, they immediately tu...
Arsehole Justice: Hollie Bentley (Facebook Riot Girl) - case referre...
Arsehole Justice: Another Facebook related Communications Act convic...
Tuesday 23 August 2011
Another Facebook Communications Act conviction. Sigh. FOI again.
To Whom It May Concern:I am writing to you seeking information about a case recently heard in the Magistrates’ Court at Caernarfon concerning 21 year old David Glyn Jones of Bangor, Gwynedd who has been charged and convicted of an offence involving an update he placed on his Facebook page on the 9th of August. The case has been reported here <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-14631184> and here <http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/23/man-jailed-for-four-months-over-facebook-attempt-to-start-riots-in-bangor-91466-29288008/>. It appears that the Facebook update was only live for 20 minutes.Can you please explain why the Serious Crime Act 2007 was not applied as it had been in other similar cases around the same period of time? Also please give details about how the Full Code Test was applied in this case. I’m particularly interested in the evidential stage. Was the defendant advised by the CPS that he must enter a guilty plea under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 if he did not deny sending the offending communication? Given the fast track nature of this prosecution, I am requesting an expedited response please. Email responses are preferred. Thank you.Regards,Matt Flaherty
CPS Wales
20th Floor, Capital Tower
Greyfriars Road
Cardiff CF10 3PL
Telephone: 02920 803800
Fax: 02920 803802
Sunday 21 August 2011
FOI request to Suffolk CPS about Bury St Edmunds Facebook case
To Whom It May Concern:I doubt the CPS will honour my request for an expedited response, but I thought I'd give it a try. If you're wondering why I'm interested in this case, read this article which I also wrote.
I am writing to you seeking information about a case recently heard in the Magistrates’ Court at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk about a 17 year old male defendant who has not been named and has been charged and convicted of an offence involving an update he placed on his Facebook page on the 9th of August. The case has been reported here <http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/west_suffolk_facebook_riot_ > and here <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/teen_was_idiot_1_991897 2011/aug/17/facebook-ban- >. It appears that the case was first brought before the court within two days of the offence.teenager-encouraged-rioters? intcmp=239
Can you please confirm that the charge in this case fell under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003? If so, please explain why the Serious Crime Act 2007 was not applied as it had been in other similar cases around the same period of time. Also please give details about how the Full Code Test was applied in this case. I’m particularly interested in the evidential stage. Was the defendant advised by the CPS that he must enter a guilty plea if he did not deny sending the offending communication? As the prosecution was expedited very quickly, I would consider an expedited response to my query to be appropriate; therefore, I ask that you please respond by Friday, the 26th of August. Email responses are preferred. Thank you.
Friday 19 August 2011
Arsehole Justice: Speedy prosecution of Facebook teen means no time ...
Wednesday 17 August 2011
New blog - Arsehole Justice
This is just such a ludicrous thing to say, and any qualified jurist, let alone a Crown Court judge, ought to know better. It makes a mockery of proportionality, which is an absolutely fundamental principle in British justice, indeed in any decent justice system. These knee-jerk responses to some genuinely terrible events are the real tragedy because they undermine the legitimacy of the courts and ignore their actual principal purpose, which first and foremost is to protect the innocent. As I've said over on Arsehole Justice, nothing takes an offence "completely outside the usual context of criminality." Nothing. There are sentencing guidelines that have evolved to meet the challenges of law enforcement and take into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. To dismiss these guidelines is to flush any notion of justice down the toilet. I happen to think that justice and the rule of law are important, and so I will not stand for it. If you feel the same way then perhaps you'd like to become a contributor. Let me know.In sentencing four other convicted Manchester rioters, a crown court judge, Andrew Gilbart QC, made clear why he was disregarding sentencing guidelines when he said "the offences of the night of 9 August … takes them completely outside the usual context of criminality".
"The principal purpose is that the courts should show that outbursts of criminal behaviour like this will be and must be met with sentences longer than they would be if the offences had been committed in isolation," he said. "For those reasons, I consider that the sentencing guidelines for specific offences are of much less weight in the context of the current case, and can properly be departed from."