Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

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.

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.

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.

Reading all of the above, I feel sure that an appeal would have the sentence increased.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Shocked at how low the sentence is. Less than a year per offence.

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...?

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.

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...?

I assume the advocates got it wrong.

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

Mid A 15 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:13 pm https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... d-16420693

A very good and enlightening article from Birmingham.