Happy Christmas

Happy New Year

Happy Easter (... best be early for the next one !)

Been back for a couple of weeks but been very busy ...

However, this story reminded me of the board -
news.sky.com/story/former-football-coach...d-sex-abuse-11249171 - and how all the deniers will be out in force !

so far!*

I'm glad you brought this to our attention, ITK.

This man is presumably about to receive his third UK prison sentence for crimes committed prior to the first of those sentences. If they'd locked him up and thrown away the key the first time, as no doubt some people feel should have been done, it would have been rather kinder than letting him out, trying him again, putting him away again, letting him out again, trying him another time...etc.

Can anyone explain to me why we should continue to torture a man in this fashion?

And why did he plead guilty to several almost identical and equally serious charges and NOT Guilty to these when it would have made no difference to his sentence (indeed, a Guilty plea for all would have given him a bigger discount)?

JK2006 wrote:
And why did he plead guilty to several almost identical and equally serious charges and NOT Guilty to these when it would have made no difference to his sentence (indeed, a Guilty plea for all would have given him a bigger discount)?

Maybe ... for once ... he was telling the truth?

(although the ones where he pleaded Not Guilty were probably still crimes - he has committed so many he has probably forgotten some !)

I suspect that in Barry Bennell's prosecutions, it is as JK often says: a bit of truth, a bit of falsehood plus some exaggeration, honest mistake/misremembering and retrospectively recasting consensual acts as abusive.

Misa made an excellent point in an earlier thread here www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,co...w/catid,2/id,172274/

The first of his (now) three UK trials did not cover all the known accusations - he was tried and found guilty of twenty-odd offences, whilst another twenty-odd were left to lay on file. Having served his time for these offences he was sentenced again in 2015 for activities during the same period as his initial UK trial. And now he's being 'got' again for offences, again, during that same period.

If someone had gone down for a sample 20 burglaries during a decade-long career, done his time, and started to rebuild his life, could we then go back and try him again, and again, each time he picked himself up, for other burglaries committed during the same period as the original offences?

There is a real danger that a defendant in such cases has no legal finality in proceedings against him (as he must have according to Article 6 & 7 case law), especially if the circumstances were purportedly investigated to the level of mounting a criminal prosecution at the time. The difference between so-called sexual offences and burglaries, as in Misa's post, is that the former require no evidence other than an accusation. If a reformed burglar were tried for break-ins in the 80s for which the only evidence were his prior record, the trial would be unfair and probably stopped after a submission of no case to answer. In a Bennell-type case, there is apparently still a case to be left to the jury because it's a matter of witness credibility. But what is the difference really? In the burglary case a prosecuting official accuses the defendant and produces no supporting evidence. In the Bennell case, a witness does the accusing, again with no evidence. The difference is that the latter claims to have been personally present. To me, that seems to be a very flimsy justification for a wholly different approach to a certain category of criminal trials.



Here's the general test for no case to answer, in case you're not familiar.

(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case.

(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.
(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.
(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness's reliability or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury. ...
There will of course, as always in this branch of the law, be borderline cases. They can safely be left to the discretion of the judge.

Lord Lane in R v Galbraith (1981) 1WLR 1039

Randall wrote:
There is a real danger that a defendant in such cases has no legal finality in proceedings against him

Not true.

Ever heard of similar cases being "taken into account"?

The problem here is that perverts always deny that they have ever done anything wrong ... so of course cannot have similar crimes "taken into account" at the time of the first conviction.

ITK, you obviously don't understand the legal terminology from the Article 6 & 7 case law, so please spare us your opinion on it.

Many defendants including this one in case you skipped over that bit plead guilty to some or all charges. Denial of everything is irrelevant: the problem comes up well before a plea. The defendant's actions are supposedly investigated to the standard required to prosecute him. Then, years later, apparently there are dozens more incidents that weren't spotted at the time. And if they had been included in the original trial, the penalty would have been a concurrent one or reduced to be proportionate in totality. So for example, conviction on 10 counts in the 80s gets you a 5 year sentence. Then conviction this year on a further 10 counts from the same time period gets you another 5 years. Conviction on all 20 back at the first trial wouldn't have attracted 10 years in prison.

I don't approve of what Barry Bennell or others have done to cause people anguish or misery, but I do think it's very important that they're treated scrupulously fairly and dispassionately.

Spot on Randall. Great post.

Randall wrote:
ITK, you obviously don't understand the legal terminology from the Article 6 & 7 case law, so please spare us your opinion on it.

Many defendants including this one in case you skipped over that bit plead guilty to some or all charges. Denial of everything is irrelevant: the problem comes up well before a plea. The defendant's actions are supposedly investigated to the standard required to prosecute him. Then, years later, apparently there are dozens more incidents that weren't spotted at the time. And if they had been included in the original trial, the penalty would have been a concurrent one or reduced to be proportionate in totality. So for example, conviction on 10 counts in the 80s gets you a 5 year sentence. Then conviction this year on a further 10 counts from the same time period gets you another 5 years. Conviction on all 20 back at the first trial wouldn't have attracted 10 years in prison.

I don't approve of what Barry Bennell or others have done to cause people anguish or misery, but I do think it's very important that they're treated scrupulously fairly and dispassionately.

But he didn't admit ANY of the charges in his previous THREE cases (2 in the UK and I in the USA) - he denied them all.

Subsequent charges (for which he had never been tried) came to light ... quite separate from any previous conviction.

You are trying to say that these offences (not even known about at the time) should have been lumped together.
That could only happen if he had pleaded guilty and asked for other offences to be taken into consideration.

That is the law - that is how it should be.

That is the danger when you are a serial offender and deny all the (initial) charges.

Randall wrote:
There is a real danger that a defendant in such cases has no legal finality in proceedings against him

He has legal finality WHEN he admits ALL the crimes he has committed !

NOT ... admit some now and hope they don't find out about the others (including the ones not yet committed !)

Misa wrote:
I'm glad you brought this to our attention, ITK.

This man is presumably about to receive his third UK prison sentence for crimes committed prior to the first of those sentences. If they'd locked him up and thrown away the key the first time, as no doubt some people feel should have been done, it would have been rather kinder than letting him out, trying him again, putting him away again, letting him out again, trying him another time...etc.

Can anyone explain to me why we should continue to torture a man in this fashion?

I think this torturous way of treating human beings is one of the reasons why other European countries have a Statute of Limitations.

In The Know (as always !) wrote:
...legal finality...


This phrase has a specific meaning relating to a doctrine in law, with a substantial amount of jurisprudence attached to it.

It has nothing to do with a defendant's plea in itself or his plea in relation to the result of his trial. By all means, ITK, continue to tell us all about it if you want to display your ignorance further.




In The Know (as always !) wrote:

You are trying to say that these offences (not even known about at the time) should have been lumped together.


No I'm not. I tried - and succeeded - in saying exactly what appears in the post above.

Randall wrote:
By all means, ITK, continue to tell us all about it if you want to display your ignorance further.

No I'm not. I tried - and succeeded - in saying exactly what appears in the post above.


Many of us have shared your despair...

md wrote:
I think this torturous way of treating human beings is one of the reasons why other European countries have a Statute of Limitations.

What do you suggest?

Get away with murder for a year then escape prosecution?

Absolutely ridiculous ... criminals should always fear the knock at the door !

One area where I might agree is in relation to the actual complaint.
If a complaint is made at the time - not years later - then it should always be persued.

Randall wrote:
By all means, ITK, continue to tell us all about it if you want to display your ignorance further.

..... so says our barrack-room lawyer (who is probably a dustman during the day !)

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/15/brea...ell-convicted-total/

86 more people came forward to report abuse following publicity about the case.

And would you think every one is true ITK? I've always said it; publicity is a strong power.

JK2006 wrote:
And would you think every one is true ITK? I've always said it; publicity is a strong power.

Let's face it, JK ... there will always be someone jumping on the bandwagon (but that does not mean that the majority of complaints are not genuine (esp when the accused has already been convicted THREE times by THREE different Courts in TWO different countries !)

If he looks like ...
Sounds like ...
Acts like ...
(and there are hundreds of people who says he is !)

... then be most probably is !

Interesting ... four people that he had dealings with committed suicide.

Now - we cannot definitively link those deaths to him, BUT these were all middle aged health men, and he was the only (known) common denominator.

Spee wrote:
Randall wrote:
By all means, ITK, continue to tell us all about it if you want to display your ignorance further.

No I'm not. I tried - and succeeded - in saying exactly what appears in the post above.


Many of us have shared your despair...




Thanks, Spee...

Some (well, one really) are a lost cause, but others find my titbits thought provoking so I keep them coming.