Welcome to the unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum - for discussing everything CH/Old Blue related. All pupils, parents, families, staff, Old Blues and anyone else related to CH are welcome to browse the boards, register and contribute.
https://chforum.info/php/
Why is it 'great news'? It is neither good nor bad, just news. If serious judicial opinion had allowed the appeal, it would have meant they considered there was a prima facie case for an appeal. That is not 'bad news'. It is justice taking its course. Mutatis mutandis the opposite.
Re 1. Not just the wrong people, but too many. Britain's prison rate is easily the highest in Europe, but its crime rate is not the lowest.sejintenej wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:45 amI agree with you on no 2.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:20 am In case you want to know why I think the English legal system is not 'the best':
1. it sends far too many people to prison
2. the accusatorial system does not allow the courts to conduct their own inquiries (defence and prosecution can agree -- tacitly or explicitly -- to omit matters of public interest)
3. it has no time limits on prosecutions
4. it allows children to be formally prosecuted
5. it allows accused persons (or even mere suspects) to be named publicly before they are convicted
6. it does not allow victims of crimes against the person (or their families, in homicide cases) to be formally represented in criminal proceedings
1. As for sending too many to prison perhaps it is the wrong people who get sent down - I cite drug addicts and mental cases as examples. OTOH far too many criminals are not sent to prison when the general ppopulation needs to be protected from them
3 If you commit a crime then you should be tried for that even if the evidence takes years to compile. Otherwise should the period be 1589 days and you get off scot free after 1590 days? All you have to do is live abroad outside UK influence for the required period.That is IMHO stupid!
5. Naming the accused allows for further evidence to surface as in the current CH master cases.
6. Victims are naturally biased and the whole basis of the justice system is to screen out any form of bias. Victims are allowed to influence the punishment after a guilty verdict by stating how they have been affected by the crims.
As for the German system I have seen cases where national socialists in the 1990s were allowed to get away with openly anti-Jew actions almost scot free - in one case in Frankfurt it went to three different courts before a "satisfactory" verdict was reached
It’s great news that the judgement that was made was sound and that the victim isn’t going to be put through the ordeal of an appeal.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:32 pmWhy is it 'great news'? It is neither good nor bad, just news. If serious judicial opinion had allowed the appeal, it would have meant they considered there was a prima facie case for an appeal. That is not 'bad news'. It is justice taking its course. Mutatis mutandis the opposite.
That is unlikely. He doesn't have a life sentence, and in any case almost no one dies in prison of old age because prisons don't have the facilities to provide expensive end-of-life care. And unlike Worboys (who's relatively young), no one will be able to say of Husband in his late 70s that he still represents a danger to the public.
Why should the appeal be an ordeal for the victim? He was seeking leave to appeal against sentence, not conviction. That is a purely technical hearing.DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:54 pmIt’s great news that the judgement that was made was sound and that the victim isn’t going to be put through the ordeal of an appeal.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:32 pmWhy is it 'great news'? It is neither good nor bad, just news. If serious judicial opinion had allowed the appeal, it would have meant they considered there was a prima facie case for an appeal. That is not 'bad news'. It is justice taking its course. Mutatis mutandis the opposite.
You are shockingly lacking in empathy. I’m can imagine a reduced sentence would be upsetting even if the concivtion weren’t overturned.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:19 amWhy should the appeal be an ordeal for the victim? He was seeking leave to appeal against sentence, not conviction. That is a purely technical hearing.DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:54 pmIt’s great news that the judgement that was made was sound and that the victim isn’t going to be put through the ordeal of an appeal.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:32 pm
Why is it 'great news'? It is neither good nor bad, just news. If serious judicial opinion had allowed the appeal, it would have meant they considered there was a prima facie case for an appeal. That is not 'bad news'. It is justice taking its course. Mutatis mutandis the opposite.
That's the outcome being upsetting, not the process of the appeal. Which is what I *think* Michael may have meant.DazedandConfused wrote:You are shockingly lacking in empathy. I’m can imagine a reduced sentence would be upsetting even if the concivtion weren’t overturned.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:19 amWhy should the appeal be an ordeal for the victim? He was seeking leave to appeal against sentence, not conviction. That is a purely technical hearing.DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:54 pm It’s great news that the judgement that was made was sound and that the victim isn’t going to be put through the ordeal of an appeal.
Whilst I don't wholly disagree with your sentiment, that is neither the argument you initially made, nor its manner. What you did was chime in with an unemotional, unempathic load of bs. This isn't court. This is a public forum, revolving around an emotive, incredibly serious issue. People can and will post their emotional responses. Your inital post was not helpful or constructive, just nitpicking and difficult. Also, if you cannot understand how the simple fact of an appeal itself could be traumatising for a victim (partocularly in a case of this nature), I would politely suggest shutting up.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:04 am Look, I have said in other posts that I think victims ought, in cases of crimes against the person, be formally legally represented at all stages of the case against the accused. It is widely reported that in the English system, where they are not, victims often feel let down or left out.
However, this is not the same thing as the law taking its course. Leave to appeal against sentence in this case was always unlikely, and a reduction in sentence on appeal (had leave been granted) was unlikelier still. It goes without saying that *any* victim will find a reduction in sentence upsetting, especially if he/she does not feel his/her situation has been taken properly into account. But that is not my point, which is that the rule of law is paramount. If Husband was denied leave to appeal, this represents a decision by three experienced judges who always have to take into account the wider public interest. The same would have been true if he *had* been granted it. Very obviously the victim will find denial of leave to appeal 'great news', a view that might be shared in their hearts by those who know her or the perpetrator. That is natural, and quite proper.
I simply think that subjective comment in public forums on judicial matters in particular cases, especially on a technical issue, is inappropriate.