Why did they have to go back to court the day after finding him guilty? Yesterday found guilty, yesterday life sentence? No?
Lol,
Agreed mate. The other piece of nonsense is when someone is found guilty and sentence deffered for "background reports"............wtf!, why isn't this done at the beginning??
Geo
Because then the judge would be seen as prejudiced, having read the background (including things irrelevant if the person is not guilty) before the case. Once they're guilty the judge needs all info relevant/irrelevant to decide on the most applicable sentence.
For Ripple and Celtic the Judge has to be seen to have made proper consideration of sentence to prevent appeals (or to give appeals less grounds).
Thanks Rod,
However on most of these cases defferal can be months away, which was really my point. Why don't they do the background reports at the beginning, the Judge doesn't need to see them until verdict given. Then he can read them over the next couple of days and decide.
There was a case recently, think it was in Dundee, when a guy had sentence deffered for background reports having been found guilty of a serious assault. He was not remanded awaiting the decision and proceeded to commit an identical offence.
Geo.
see you - you've started me researching now.
A wise man once told me (in a book) that if you have to ask why of a Government/Legal System etc the answer will eventually be ££.
Right - of criminal court cases in England/Wales in 2006 there were 1.47 million.
50,000 were not guilty.
350,000 were cautioned.
959,000 were fined.
Now as far as I know (& I'm not a lawyer) - judges ask for reports when they are considering custodial sentences. So allowing the 3 categories above out of that thought process, then by only asking reports at that stage there has been a saving of 1,359,000 reports.
To produce the reports on those would take how many more civil servants? Better waiting. The only thing I'd say is if a judge is considering a custodial sentence for violent crimes they should SERIOUSLY consider not allowing bail. In the case from Dundee the victim should be allowed to sue the jusdge IMHO.
BTW This is a quick look at the stats on
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/sentencing-stats2006.pdf - I know that some cases wouldn't need the reports and the 1.3 million would be a lot less, but it illustrates the point.
Author