Fucking hell

Jump to navigation Jump to search

You are probably right that the Ministry of Justice probably won't notice that a convicted witness intimidator did not go to jail.

I don't want "RICO" type laws that automatically give gang-related crime stiffer sentences. But I would like to see some sanity in sentencing.

I would like to think that the Lord Chancellor and his ministers discussed the prison sentence for the person who "falsely retracted" the rape allegation. I bet that discussion is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, but a civilised society should expect judges to be held accountable in some way.

Sure, intimidation is not an excuse for a witness to withhold evidence (or to lie). Yet when that witness is the victim of the alleged crime, judges have leeway and discretion, and they should use that discretion in the interests of justice.

How many more crimes will now be hushed up, when witnesses have cause to fear the courts as much as they fear the accused?

InfantGorilla (talk)09:17, 19 November 2010

I could always shoot for it under the Act (or re-read the Act to identify if it is indeed exempt). I've already got an FoI request pending on that and plan to sub another tonight. I shan't explain what publicly, at least while it's pending, but I'm happy to email you with details.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)18:14, 19 November 2010

I won't dig into the paperwork by email, but I look forward to reading the outcomes. Even if there is an exemption (I hope there isn't), I think the information holder often has the option to release the information.

InfantGorilla (talk)21:16, 20 November 2010