This former Labour MP who lined HIS pockets rather than looking after his constituents (sound familiar?) has been jailed for 18 months.

Interesting one, this.

While I am pretty annoyed about the MPs' expenses claims in general, I do recognise that many were within the rules at the time and so it would be unjust to punish them, even for the sneakiest dodges.

Then there's a grey area, where some MPs were caught out, and used the "ooops sorry, it was an administrative/clerical mistake" then paid the money back. Not an approach likely to work for those prosecuted for benefits fraud, but hmmm oh well at least it's been paid back.

Mr Chaytor's case contains a pretty clear fraudulent intent, including demonstrably falsified documents and invoices, apparently used to cover his "ooops administrative/clerical mistakes" which of course is not at all acceptable.

HOWEVER... I think the MPs prosecuted over expenses have a solid claim that any allegations of wrongdoing, even if proven, are covered by parliamentary privilege. The 1689 Bill of Rights extends privilege to the regulation of internal affairs of the House and also to the management of employees, amongst other areas. Once again, I don't really like it, but those do seem to be the rules.

My final point is that imprisonment seems inappropriate for Mr Chaytor. He doesn't look like much of a menace, so I don't see what justification there is for removing him from society: no one needs protection from him. If a measure of punishment or rehabilitation is required, a community sentence could deliver this adequately and much more cheaply than a prison sentence.

Prison is not just to protect society though. It is to serve as a deterrent and to 'punish' offenders. He will not re-offend, mark my words.

SJB wrote:
HOWEVER... I think the MPs prosecuted over expenses have a solid claim that any allegations of wrongdoing, even if proven, are covered by parliamentary privilege. The 1689 Bill of Rights extends privilege to the regulation of internal affairs of the House and also to the management of employees, amongst other areas. Once again, I don't really like it, but those do seem to be the rules.

Didn't the Courts look at this claim -- and dismiss it entirely?

Surely Parliamentary priviledge is for the protection of MPs raising justifiable matters on behalf of their constituents - not for covering-up their own criminal intent ?

Regarding sentencing, I think here is a classic example of where a stiff sentence was used as a deterent to others (and to placate the public / media).

SJB wrote:
Interesting one, this.

While I am pretty annoyed about the MPs' expenses claims in general, I do recognise that many were within the rules at the time and so it would be unjust to punish them, even for the sneakiest dodges.

Then there's a grey area, where some MPs were caught out, and used the "ooops sorry, it was an administrative/clerical mistake" then paid the money back. Not an approach likely to work for those prosecuted for benefits fraud, but hmmm oh well at least it's been paid back.

Mr Chaytor's case contains a pretty clear fraudulent intent, including demonstrably falsified documents and invoices, apparently used to cover his "ooops administrative/clerical mistakes" which of course is not at all acceptable.

HOWEVER... I think the MPs prosecuted over expenses have a solid claim that any allegations of wrongdoing, even if proven, are covered by parliamentary privilege. The 1689 Bill of Rights extends privilege to the regulation of internal affairs of the House and also to the management of employees, amongst other areas. Once again, I don't really like it, but those do seem to be the rules.

My final point is that imprisonment seems inappropriate for Mr Chaytor. He doesn't look like much of a menace, so I don't see what justification there is for removing him from society: no one needs protection from him. If a measure of punishment or rehabilitation is required, a community sentence could deliver this adequately and much more cheaply than a prison sentence.

Yes good idea. Lets jail people based on appearance.

Jackboot Jacqui Smith deserved to be taken to court for her fiddling of expenses.

This man is a FALL GUY. His sentence is to say "look we are doing something" but not hitting the real fraudsters as usual.

Our court system is generally all for show at the moment. It needs an overhaul.

Chaytor is "being made an example of" to try and save face for our so-called democracy. This sentence is window-dressing.

Angel wrote:
SJB wrote:


My final point is that imprisonment seems inappropriate for Mr Chaytor. He doesn't look like much of a menace, so I don't see what justification there is for removing him from society: no one needs protection from him. If a measure of punishment or rehabilitation is required, a community sentence could deliver this adequately and much more cheaply than a prison sentence.

Yes good idea. Lets jail people based on appearance.

OK I'll put it more clearly to save you the bother of failing to be amusing for a second time.

The public is not at risk from Mr Chaytor in a way, or to an extent, that necessitates his imprisonment. Also, a clean previous record and guilty plea would often help to avoid a custodial sentence in similar cases.

He was caught stealing our money. Serves him.

angel wrote:
Serves him.

And costs us...

And is of questionable and limited necessity and benefit.

SJB wrote:
angel wrote:
Serves him.

And costs us...

And is of questionable and limited necessity and benefit.
What do YOU believe the penalty for false accounting should be since you ap[pear to be opposed to a custodial sentence. Please bear in mind that the punishment you suggest should be sufficient to deter offenders and judging by your previous post it should be cost effective.

You're assuming that deterrence should be a factor in determining a sentence. Different people are deterred to different extents by different things, at different times in life, so it's difficult to suggest a punishment for Mr Chaytor that would be a general deterrence to all others in his position. Some might be quite willing to accept the risk of a 3 year stretch for a 20ish thousand quid scam. Others would be put off by just a caution.

David Chaytor has been in politics for nearly 30 years and this conviction (regardless of sentence) has ended that career: a significant deterrent in itself perhaps. It depends how highly Mr Chayor valued his work.

Anyway, most people talk about protection (of the public), rehabilitation and punishment as the elements of sanctions in criminal law. But... it depends if you accept that that is a genuine expression of what a sentence should represent. I dont think David Chaytor poses a risk to the public: he's doesn't pose a great risk of violence and is unlikely to turn suddenly to burglary, car theft or drug trafficking now that his political career is over. So imprisonment for the protection of society would be irrational and disproportionate. So the question is, do we imprison him because this is the most appropriate way to deliver rehabilitation and punishment? I'd say not, because rehabilitative measures in prison are patchy at best and a very unfunny joke at worst. Prison time purely for punishment? Again I'd say not, because in the world of false accounting, £20k over several years is VERY small beans. He's hardly Bernard Madoff or Frank Abagnale is he? I'm not excusing what he did at all, just pointing out that he's near the bottom of the scale in fraud terms.

Anyway, to answer your question (at last) The Most Delighful and Magnificent Judge SJB would give him a fairly hefty wodge of community service - rather fitting I think. In addition and for a limited period, restrictions on what public offices he could hold would be appropriate as well as some kind of accounting scrutiny if he has any business or commercial or other expenses dealings. Not sure if provisions for these latter sanctions exist, but that's what I think would teach him a lesson about actually serving the community as well as being an unwelcome embuggerance, with some kind of supervision to make sure he doesn't try any more funny business.

Or we could just hang the f*cker, then birch him to within an inch of his life. Then deport him.

I suggest that false accounting would escalate should the threat of prison be removed. Community service is a soft option that any one would choose over prison, therefore lessening the deterrent effect.
I agree that David Chaytor does not pose a risk of physical violence to the public which in my opinion is irrelevant anyway since the sentence is for the purpose of punishment, not public protection. However, why do you assume that now his career political is over, he will not continue to be a risk to the public by false accounting or other dishonest business practices in any private enterprise that he pursues. Would you grant that same latitude to a common car thief or burglar? Surely, until he has been rehabilitated , he is a risk in this regard?
Finally , your solution/punishment, smacks of a two tier justice system, unless you believe that restrictions on the public offices offenders could hold may deter your local window cleaner from being less than honest in his accounting! Nope. politicians are thieves too, they are just more highbrow thieves.

I'll just quickly answer a couple of your questions.

why do you assume that now his career political is over, he will not continue to be a risk to the public by false accounting or other dishonest business practices

I don't. That's why I suggested an extra measure of financial or auditing scrutiny as an ongoing preventative and rehabilitative measure.

Would you grant that same latitude to a common car thief or burglar?

Yes, assuming their criminal history was similar to David Chaytor's ie relatively small scale offending with no prior convictions and no other aggravating factors.

I'm afraid I don't really get your point about the two-tier justice and the window cleaner, so I can't answer that.

Anon wrote:
Prison is not just to protect society though. It is to serve as a deterrent and to 'punish' offenders. He will not re-offend, mark my words.

well I'm not sure how he could re-offend as it is highly unlikely he would ever be a position to again.

For that reason I believe the sentence to be harsh and again, a community service order would have been ideal.

veritas wrote:
Anon wrote:
Prison is not just to protect society though. It is to serve as a deterrent and to 'punish' offenders. He will not re-offend, mark my words.

well I'm not sure how he could re-offend as it is highly unlikely he would ever be a position to again.

For that reason I believe the sentence to be harsh and again, a community service order would have been ideal.

Why would he not be in a position to carru out false accounting again? He is free to conduct business as he wishes!¬
Prison is the norm, and not the exception for such crimes. I consider the sentence aporopriate, particularly as the offender should have set a good example, given his position as a law maker

well he is hardly likely to be elected to parliament again and a person should never be punished on the basis of a possible future crime.

Nor do I believe 'messages' should be sent out...a totally meaningless concept that has never worked yet (unless someone can show me differently)

If his sentence is the norm then yes, a person must be treated as others are but I still believe jail should be a last choice now..genuine useful community service I reckon would be cheaper and more productive.

(like my friend in Sweden who was jailed for attempted bank robbery and was allowed to start a video import business in the can..never robbed another bank..as far as I know )

Particularly as jails just become re-cycling centres.