Dobbie sentencing hearing

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by richardb » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:05 pm

It may be possible. They won't dish them out to just anybody and we would need to satisfy the court that there was a legitimate reason to have them.

The victims of Webb and Burr were let down by this judge who seems weak on sentencing in sex cases.

Up here he would have got 18 years.
These users thanked the author richardb for the post:
J.R. (Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:01 am)
Rating: 5.88%

Otter
LE (Little Erasmus)
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:17 pm
Real Name: Stephen O'Rourke
Location: East Anglia
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by Otter » Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:29 am

A teacher who taught at my primary school was convicted of the following in 2015.

Assault of 7 victims over a 15-year period between 1970 and 1985. Victims aged 7-12. Sentence: 21 years. Aged 74 at time of sentencing.

I know the victims were younger, but still a lot of disparity in sentencing. I thought the Sentencing Guidelines were supposed to minimise this risk.

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by richardb » Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:38 am

One of the main purposes of the Guidelines was to ensure consistency, so that the same set of facts received the same sentence in Hove as it did in Carlisle.

I cannot recall such a derisory sentence for nine victims.

User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15634
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 180 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by J.R. » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:13 am

Reading all of the above, I feel sure that an appeal would have the sentence increased.
These users thanked the author J.R. for the post:
Avon (Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:19 am)
Rating: 5.88%
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.

Avon
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:39 pm
Real Name: Ed Bell
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by Avon » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:19 am

That award is shocking. A much higher sentence is indicated.

At least the media have caught up with the chaplaincy issue. So has this mentalist:

https://goodnessandharmony.wordpress.com/

I think that the CofE angle to the case is interesting. In my opinion there should also be an achnowledgement by the Church that Dobbie committed these crimes whilst frocked, it's their diligence and monitoring that is also - to a degree - at fault. Is any such thing on record?

That said, the school was employer, and had the obligation to pastoral care, diligence and governance that failed. That should still be investigated and put to Poulton, Sillett and Cairncross.
These users thanked the author Avon for the post:
Elvie (Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:26 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by richardb » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:24 am

I have had a bit of an update on this.

The judge seems to have worked on the basis that the maximum sentence for the indecent assaults was 2 years imprisonment. If the information that I have been given is correct, the judge was wrong about that. It was 10 years imprisonment for offences on males committed between 1 January 1957 and 30 April 2004.
These users thanked the author richardb for the post:
postwarblue (Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:18 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

max_ratcliffe
3rd Former
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:06 am
Real Name: Max Ratcliffe
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by max_ratcliffe » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:30 am

From my layman's viewpoint, the purposes of sentencing are threefold: punishment, deterrence and the removal of dangerous people from society.

Is this the way it actually works?

Is the last, which is the most important, the most difficult to achieve?
Would a 25 year old serial offender receive a longer sentence than a 75yo on the basis that they have much more opportunity to reoffend?

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by richardb » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:38 am

max_ratcliffe wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:30 am
From my layman's viewpoint, the purposes of sentencing are threefold: punishment, deterrence and the removal of dangerous people from society.

Is this the way it actually works?

Is the last, which is the most important, the most difficult to achieve?
Would a 25 year old serial offender receive a longer sentence than a 75yo on the basis that they have much more opportunity to reoffend?
In theory they would both get the same sentence but some judges will reduce the 75 year old's sentence as an act of compassion.

As has been discussed already, 75 year old paedophiles remain a serious risk. Their urges never seem to diminish.

User avatar
marty
Grecian
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:29 pm
Real Name: Marty E
Location: Buckinghamshire
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by marty » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:39 am

Shocked at how low the sentence is. Less than a year per offence.
My therapist says I have a preoccupation with vengeance. We’ll see about that.

Pe.A
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by Pe.A » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:59 am

richardb wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:24 am
I have had a bit of an update on this.

The judge seems to have worked on the basis that the maximum sentence for the indecent assaults was 2 years imprisonment. If the information that I have been given is correct, the judge was wrong about that. It was 10 years imprisonment for offences on males committed between 1 January 1957 and 30 April 2004.
Interesting. Any reason why the length of sentencing dropped post 2004...?

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by richardb » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 pm

It didn't. It stayed the same.

2004 saw the implementation of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the offence of indecent assault was abolished and and replaced by sexual assault which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

User avatar
Mid A 15
Button Grecian
Posts: 3069
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 1:38 pm
Real Name: Claude Rains
Location: The Patio Of England (Kent)
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by Mid A 15 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:13 pm

Ma A, Mid A 65 -72

Pe.A
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by Pe.A » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:23 pm

richardb wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 pm
It didn't. It went up.

2004 saw the implementation of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the offence of indecent assault was abolished and and replaced by sexual assault.
Ok. I see. So is there any possible reason why the judge would have interpreted things otherwise...?

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by richardb » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:31 pm

I assume the advocates got it wrong.

If they did, it's a bad mistake to make.

User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15634
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 180 times

Re: Dobbie sentencing hearing

Post by J.R. » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:55 pm

A very good and enlightening article from Birmingham.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.

Post Reply