The Celebrity Abusers Thread

[SuperBacon]

I can't even imagine how much strength it took for that victim to read her statement live in court before the sentencing. Knowing he was metres from her.

I hope that fucking cunt rots.

[Ironic Indie Lad]

Not sure what I am really basing it on as I know next to nothing about sentencing (except from what I have listened to from some experts after the verdict on this case) but for some reason I had a feeling he would get a bit less.

Hopefully this gives those involved some closure.

7 years feels like plenty of time for the current investigations to conclude + several other complainants to come forward as expected by the Met Police.

Easy to imagine a scenario where he never gets out.

[Chest Rockwell]

He has clearly, to this point, still not accepted any responsibility for the pain he has caused. I hope this is the start of a very sobering and uncomfortable road to realisation for him and he comes to understand the impact of his actions, and that they haunt him. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Chest Rockwell

[westlondonmist]

I've never really understood concurrent sentencing, it's basically saying it's okay to commit extra crimes you won't get any extra time. 

 

Glad the judge has said that it's his fault he won't see his kids, mind he still lowered the sentence by a year as a token gesture. Although the reality is more charges will come and the police have 7 years really to investigate. 

 

I get the feeling he will have a book out within a year through some dodgy publishing house about how the mainstream media and the elites had him taken down (to funky town), and then another about whatever religion he aligns himself to. 

[WyattSheepMask]

Incredible strength & bravery by the victim who read her statement in court, can’t even imagine how much it took to do that.

Id imagine he’ll be in a seperate secure wing for his own safety, but I hope he rots

[RedTwoster]

1 hour ago, westlondonmist said:

I've never really understood concurrent sentencing, it's basically saying it's okay to commit extra crimes you won't get any extra time. 

I was wondering about this when it came to the potential for future trials. Would it be concurrent or added on to his existing sentence? Or do they consider the existing sentence and extend it by treating everything as a whole?

It's a really odd one. 

[SuperBacon]

Doesnt it exist because you're being sentenced for a punishment which you have to serve immediately, unless its suspended? 

You can't order a criminal to serve say 10 years for one crime, and then when that sentence finishes, start another sentence for another crime. That also doesn't make sense to me. Concurrent sentencing isn't that effective either I guess, but I think it makes more sense.

[WyattSheepMask]

Google gave this as answer

———-
 

Why would a judge choose concurrent sentences?

Common reasons include:

The offences are connected: Several offences happened during the same incident.

Fairness: The judge considers that adding every sentence together would be excessive.

Overlapping criminal behaviour: Several convictions arise from essentially the same course of conduct.

Proportionality: The overall punishment should reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Does concurrent mean someone gets away with the other offences?

No. The person is still convicted of every offence and receives a sentence for each one.

However, the longest sentence effectively determines the overall prison term.

In England and Wales, judges must consider sentencing rules and the totality principle when deciding whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.

———

So had the sentences been consecutive rather concurrent, he’d have been looking at 12 years (likely to have served 2/3s = 8 years). In this case I think it would fall under the ‘Overlapping Criminal Behaviour’ suggestion. I’m no legal expert, but hypothetically if Offender X were to have stolen a car to drive to someone’s house and shoot that person dead with a gun, that would be three counts- Grand Theft Auto, Possession of a Deadly Weapon and Murder. The count of murder would receive the longest sentence, but it doesn’t happen without the two things occurring. You’re not getting away with the other two counts, they would be separate convictions, but they play into a bigger picture

Edited 23 hours ago by WyattSheepMask
Bad maths on my part, added a hypothetical situation

[Chest Rockwell]

10 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

You can't order a criminal to serve say 10 years for one crime, and then when that sentence finishes, start another sentence for another crime. That also doesn't make sense to me.

Why doesn't that make sense? Makes complete sense to me.. what am I missing?

[SuperBacon]

6 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

Why doesn't that make sense? Makes complete sense to me.. what am I missing?

For the reasons Wyatt put above. I'm not a legal expert, it just makes more sense to me.

I think it also protects the CPS against appeals, as I think he'd havd to win 4 separate appeals rather than 1 if he was now only just serving his rape charge sentence and was able to win that on appeal.

[Chest Rockwell]

How would it affect appeals? They're all separate convictions with different sentences now, and would be in that scenario too. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Chest Rockwell

[DCW]

When I had to go to court a few times a month in a previous job to get documents signed by a judge, the only time consecutive sentencing ever seemed to be used was when the defendant committed further offences while out on bail. Everything else seemed to be headline offence sentence and then concurrent sentence if charges were similar.

Another thing with Brand is he will be on the sex offenders register presumably for the rest of his life which will impact hugely on family, housing, work etc when he eventually gets out. 

[SuperBacon]

Just now, Chest Rockwell said:

How would it affect appeals? They're all separate convictions now, and would be in that scenario too. 

No idea, I must have read that wrong and I don't know enough about the law, I'm just talking of what makes more sense to me personally, and that's the sentences being carried out concurrently under the current law.

[Tim Healys Chutney Spoon]

What saddens me most is the number of comments of 'we all knew it was going on' and 'it was well known what he was like' and yet noone thought 'fuck it, I'm going to do whats right, irrespective of personal consequence'. I know he was influential and had a lot of 'power' but surely someone somewhere would have done and said something?

[Chest Rockwell]

20 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

No idea, I must have read that wrong and I don't know enough about the law, I'm just talking of what makes more sense to me personally, and that's the sentences being carried out concurrently under the current law.

Sure. And that's what I was interested in in my original question earlier anyway. Not about the legalities but of what's your line of thinking around why that makes sense to you.