blonde poker forum

Wow..Bellfield....sentenced today to a whole life sentence and

"He had refused to attend the hearing because of a "welter of accusations" that he was behind other unsolved crimes.

William Boyce QC told the judge: "Overnight there has been what some consider to be a quite extraordinary explosion of bad publicity.

"There has been a welter of accusations of other crimes by him. He chooses not to return today."


isn't it extraordinary that someone found guilty isn't compelled to be there in person to hear his sentence?

and why is the bad publicity (he was hardly likely to get good publicity) "quite extraordinary"?

What exactly could they do, considering he knew he was getting the maximum sentence available anyway?

"You have to go to court to hear you're being sent to jail forever, otherwise you'll get a £100 fine and 40 hours of community service"

He's over 20 stone and an ex-bouncer - forcing him would mean police/prison staff getting injured.

Pretty soon you'll be able to not attend because you 'dont want to hear any bad news'

I think someone said he was a Chelsea fan. No wonder he doesn't want to show his face.

Agreed Andrew, and with the recent spate of villains escaping whilst being escorted to court/hospital why should we give scum like this even a whiff of a chance at seeing anything other than the inside of a prison.

I'd hate to think that the lawyers next move would be to try and get him off on some sort of technicality that the sentence wasn't handed down properly........... nothing amazes me anymore with the craziness of this world.

geo

The scumbag was probably choosing his Sky package and looking at the menu for his "prison" cell.

I know a few gentleman who would have been able to assist him to the dock.

Mind you he wouldn't be able to stand for the sentencing.

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

The judge had to decide life with parole (and if so how many years)....or life meaning life.

Probaby took him 2 seconds,...but he had a round of golf booked. :D

decide? like i have to decide calling with AA when someone pushes all in? what a joke having to go back. Parole my arse, how can it ever be an option??????

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.

At least one an hour - but then i'm due my Bi-Annual tick bath next month :( so no doubt i'll be having less an less

rotflmfao rotflmfao

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 (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.