By punter99 - 12 Sep 22 3:19 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-had-sex-park-13-092000762.html
There is so much detail missing from this story. Really poor journalism, to give such little explanation of the reasons for the sentence. It will just reinforce the idea that SO get 'soft 'sentences.
|
By Campbell71 - 23 Feb 23 12:42 PM
+x+x+x+x+xRather than start a new thread... I've just seen a story of a (now ex) police officer, sentenced to 10 months, suspended for two years, with a 10-year SHPO. He had one Cat A video... one. Obviously losing his job and being in the paper will severely impact what happens going forward but... it just all seems relentless. Is the sentence too much, is it because of his job, is it just a lottery. I continue to see the press report on many individuals for the same offense and still only get given 5 - 7 years on the SHPO, some of which have been found to have 50 - 100s of Cat A, including ex police officers. The system is a joke and the only people it protects are those who are "entrusted" to enforce it. I would honestly say it is a lottery and falls on how good your solicitors are and if you can pay them enough. You didn't mention if he had any cat B or C, if he literally only had one video and still got that kind of sentence I would definitely say it is way to much. A caution could have been enough surely? Seems to me a conviction was pushed partly because of his job and because its a point for the arresting officer for an easy conviction. I'm in Scotland, I had 1 Cat C image and got 2 years on the SOR. Im not complaining btw but I was told at the time that if i was in england i'd likely have recieved a caution. I know someone who was found to have 1 - 2 images, I am unaware of the category though but was given a caution which I believe lasts for 2 years? I think over all it would all come down to the force in which is investigating the case and how big their ego is. A caution will get you two years on the SOR. That is what the law dictates, so there is no discretion. The discretion is in how the police decide to proceed. I remember about twenty years ago that there was a ruling that if the number of images was under sixteen, then it should be dealt with by a caution. There may well have been other rulings since then, of course.
Looks like it wouldnt have made a difference then with the SOR, although would have prevented all the court toing and froing and solicitors fees. But the worst part was the visits from the omu so fair enough.
|
|