Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3

AIBU?

To believe it is right that "shorts mum" is released?

63 replies

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 07:51

A woman who reportedly slept through the riots in Manchester, England, was jailed for allegedly taking a pair of shorts looted by a friend, officials said.

Ursula Nevin, 24, was ordered freed on appeal, The Guardian reported Friday.

Nevin, a mother of two, was held for five months before being released in what is believed to be the first successful appeal against a sentence related to rioting and looting in England earlier this year.

Nevin admitted to accepting the shorts from a friend who allegedly took part in rioting in Manchester. The severity of her sentence was questioned because she wasn't involved in the actual crime.

Judge Andrew Gilbart said he ordered Nevin freed because she didn't take part in the riots.

Read more: www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/08/19/Woman-freed-in-stolen-shorts-case/UPI-33211313770204/#ixzz1VY7Mq93n

I couldn't beleive she shot 5 months for this in the first place. She was wrong to have taken the shorts from her friend and to let her friend into the flat with the looted property but she wasn't on the streets terrorising anyone and should IMO have been sentenced lighter than those who were.

I am glad the appeal judge has freed her.

OP posts:

Report

DoingTheBestICan · 20/08/2011 07:54

I dont agree,she knowingly accepted stolen goods so she should be made to pay back.Maybe 5 mths was a bit long & maybe she could have had a community service order instead but she most definitly should have been punished.

Would your view change if it were goods from your home that they were sharing out?

CogitoErgoSometimes · 20/08/2011 07:55

That's the whole point of the appeal system and it's obviously working well. However, I think the original shock-factor of the sentence will have had an impact. Next time she's offered some dodgy goods the silly woman might think better of it.

RebelFromTheWaistDown · 20/08/2011 07:55

YANBU. I'm glad for her innocent children. They don't deserve to be punished and this lady should not have been sent to jail. I hope she has learned a lesson.

Andrewofgg · 20/08/2011 07:55

I'm glad she spent a few nights inside first - as a warning to others. The ones who actually did the damage are getting far more, and rightly, but anyone accepting goods looted during the riots is accepting the benefit and should share the punishment. If she had got 28 and served 14 days that would havbe been about right.

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 08:00

doingthebest Of course she should have been punished, without a doubt, but at the time this sentence scared me because some of the people in our country had gone mad and it looked like the judiciary were following them.

I'm glad justice has been restored, she has got something like 70 hours community service which is far more reasonable and of course she's already served a week or two inside.

I wonder if many more will follow. The judge said that it was because she didn't take part in the riots.

The only other shocking sentence that I've heard of that might be appealed is the waterbottle man who stole £3.50 worth of goods and got six months. But he was looting although it was a very small amount of goods from an already broken into shop.

OP posts:

PamSco · 20/08/2011 08:04

It is fair if that is the standard tariff for this crime, it is not fair if it is not the standard tariff for this crime... end of.

cjbartlett · 20/08/2011 08:08

How could she have beenheld for five months? It only happened a fortnight ago

CogitoErgoSometimes · 20/08/2011 08:08

I don't think many more will follow. Judges & magistrates are not normally influenced either by public opinion or politicians. They try to avoid having cases return through the appeal system because it's expensive and time-consuming. They have a tariff of sentences to work within and that's generally what they do.

BTW.... we can't hold back from punishing people just because they have children. Men or women.

TheMagnificentBathykolpian · 20/08/2011 08:11

She should have got the standard term for handling stolen goods. If that is 5 months then it should have been 5 months, if it is community service then it should have been community service.

I don't know what the standard term for handling stolen goods is.

DoingTheBestICan · 20/08/2011 08:16

Maybe she'll think twice now if ever she is offered stolen goods again.

I wonder what sort of community service she will do?

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 08:19

Cjb She was ordered to be held for five months, sentence now overturned.

I hope she doesn't try to get any compensation for time spent inside that would stick in my craw though.

Cognito I am sure I didn't imagine the politicians telling us, Theresa May in particular, that the full weight of the law, would fall on the looters prior to the sentences being given out.

No one is asking from her not to be punished because she is a mother just for that punishment to match the severity of the crime which it didn't.

Themagnificent I would be more in line with what she now has I have to assume, which is community service.

OP posts:

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 08:20

doing the best I hope it involves cleaning up the damage that has been done in Manchester. That would seem fitting to me.

OP posts:

DoingTheBestICan · 20/08/2011 08:24

Totally agree with you MitMoo i saw all the damage & sheer vandalism & just felt really sorry for the shop workers knowing that it would have been them tidying it all up.

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 08:32

That is if they are lucky doing I wonder how many have lost their jobs because of this.

OP posts:

reallytired · 20/08/2011 08:39

I think its fair that she spent some time in jail. She benefited from the riot by accepting stolen goods. Prehaps 5 months is a bit harsh, but I don't know what the standard sentence is for recieving stolen goods.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 20/08/2011 08:43

May said 'full weight of the law' but she's not in the courtroom handing down the sentences. The judiciary protect their right to determine sentencing independent of government very fiercely indeed. There's always a minimum and maximum tariff for any crime and the circumstances of that crime affect whether the convicted criminal gets a sentence at the low or high end. In a riot situation, many of the crimes committed will attract a different & higher tariff than they would in isolation. In this case it's been decided the original sentence was too stiff... but I would be surprised if many more were overturned on appeal.

DoingTheBestICan · 20/08/2011 08:46

Thats true as well MitMoo.
I work in a shop & luckily we were told if ours had been raided we would have kept our jobs by tidying up or being sent to other branches but i know a lot of people will have lost their jobs because of these bloody mindless thugs.

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 08:57

doing I have no sympathy at all with the rioters, we were not in an affected city but it terrified my son that they'd come here. I've read heartwrenching stories on this site about children as young as three too scared to go outside.

But the judiciary seemed to have lost the plot when they sentenced one thug to four months for trying to gouge a policeman's eye and this woman 5 months for taking a pair of shorts.

OP posts:

DoingTheBestICan · 20/08/2011 09:03

We were lucky here as we had no rioting whatsoever (North Wales) but like everyone else we watched it on the news & ds saw a clip & asked us what was happening.We tried to explain in a way that a 5 yr old could understand but i just thought of those people actually having to live through it & barricade themselves in.

Very frightening & i hope never to have to see anything like it again.

LittleWhiteWolf · 20/08/2011 09:11

Handling Stolen Goods is a crime and that crime usually carries a custodial sentence. Ok so she only accepted those shorts, but from what I read at the time of her sentencing, her friend brought much more than that to her home, which she allowed to be kept there (later picking out the shorts to keep for herself). I don't understand why people are up in arms about this--she commited a crime and she was given a very short sentence. I say very short, because had she not appealed she would likely have served only a month or two of it in full before release.

I hope that she learns from this--that actions have consequences, particularly criminal actions. I also hope that her children learn from this: commit a crime, go to prison (most likely). My only worry is that the appeal granting her freedom may lead to her dismissing her having done anything wrong or that the authorities were too harsh and unfair. Some members of society have no fear or respect of the authorities, as we heard during those bloody riots. How many looters were quoted as saying that they were getting one back on the police, who were constantly "out of order"?

magicmummy1 · 20/08/2011 09:11

I don't think that women should expect to get lighter sentences just because they happen to be mothers. Yes, their innocent children may indeed suffer as a result of the parents' crimes, but that cannot be used as a get out of jail free card. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

Having said that, I think some of the recent sentencing has been all wrong, and several months in prison for receiving a pair of stolen shorts or stealing a bottle of water seems excessive and disproportionate. We risk turning people who have made stupid mistakes into more serious criminals, and our prisons would be overflowing if we applied such sentences consistently. I agree that a community service order would probably be more appropriate for crimes of this nature.

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 09:27

Our prisons are overflowing magic they are talking about trying to finish building new prisons early as contingency plans and taking old ones back into service if it gets any worse. I really don't think we can afford to have people in jails for five months for taking a pair of shorts and allowing her flatmat in with her loot. Apart from that it was sentencing that harks back to Victorian times rather that today.

OP posts:

PamSco · 20/08/2011 09:40

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/handling/

There you go, feel free to play judges and juries. The tariff for HSG is upto 14 years custodial.

For the shorts....
Property

CogitoErgoSometimes · 20/08/2011 09:42

Mitmoo... the country came perilously close to total anarchy a couple of weeks ago. Our reputation around the world took a severe knock. Investors might think twice about putting money into businesses here, tourists might give us a wide berth and other serious side-effects that affect us all indirectly Thousands were involved in violence, mass looting, muggings, murder etc., to a greater or lesser extent and if we don't follow the justice system through & deal with the offenders appropriately then we risk harming our reputation even more. It's not 'Victorian' in the slightest... it's an exceptional set of circumstances requiring exceptional resolutions.

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 09:46

Cognito Our international reputation is not enhanced for acting like a backward country using draconian sentences for minor crime. Thankfully the appeal judge realised the sentence was indeed draconian and has put in a place a more appropriate sentence.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.