Scottow verdict: Guilty

You're letting your fervour about this issue cloud your better judgment of the law.

A judge has found her guilty of the crime ergo she committed the crime. It was obvious that she had anyway, even to a layman.

Wow Sharon. Don’t warn me on anything

EVER

It's the correct result because she committed the crime she was charged with. That was plain to see. She used a few different aliases to harass the victim (or whatever the longwinded wording is of the charge). She was subject to a court agreement where she agreed to stop, but she kept at it. I hope a lot of you on here take some cautionary advice from her tale.

as a slight aside - I note that Kate was charged in relation to the Communications Act 2003 which superseded the Telecommunications Act 1984. Facebook was founded in 2004, YouTube in 2005, Twitter in 2006. People are being prosecuted using outdated legislation that does not reflect the realties of social media in the 21st century.

There are posts on this thread and the other correcting the misconceptions around this.

A court ordered her to desist and she didn’t

She did actually.

Hayden went looking for her and her tweet and most of the tweets used as evidence didn't even mention hayden.

Hayden, who's tweets, mysteriously, weren't recorded in evidence by cps

Nobody would buy a wig with that sort of comb-over though.

Before the CPS prosecute something it has to pass two tests. The first is whether there is enough evidence that someone has committed a crime. In this case yes, Kate Scottow caused annoyance to someone on the internet, which apparently is illegal, and her tweets provide the evidence.

The second test is whether it's in the public interest to bring a prosecution and I can't work out how prosecuting Kate was in the public interest. This took up two days of court time and the judge went off to deliberate for a whole week - very unusual for magistrates court. The outcome was a small amount of costs, a tiny victim surcharge and a conditional discharge.

And of course Kate's career has been ruined which is not a legitimate sentence, it's simply a horrendous side effect, out of all proportion to her 'crime'.

The other horrendous side effect of this misguided prosecution is of course the chilling effect it has on the human right to freedom of expression for all of us. See the Harry Miller judgment for all you need to know about that.

These horrendous, unjust side effects from the prosecution of someone involved in a twitter spat with a TRA troll could have been foreseen by the CPS. I would like to know how they reached the conclusion that it was in the public interest to bring this prosecution. Is there any way we can get them to show their working?

FOI won't work because it's an individual case. Kate could do a subject access request but probably wouldn't get much because they don't have to release information that relates to the prosecution of offenders.

CPS have a complaints procedure. It's open to anyone who has had direct contact with the CPS with some exceptions, including people convicted of a crime who want to appeal. So that's a non-starter.

They also have a 'feedback procedure' and anyone can provide feedback. It has no teeth of course:

All feedback will be acknowledged, formally recorded and analysed in order to identify improvements to develop our services so that they continue to meet the needs of the public. We are committed to delivering excellent service standards and will use feedback to identify and develop good practice. Where it is possible and appropriate to do so, a response to the feedback will be provided.

www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Feedback-Complaints-Policy-Jan-2019-v2.pdf

Nevertheless if enough of us get our feedback officially recorded they can't pretend they didn't know when the shit hits the fan, and I do believe we are now seeing the first spatterings of shit hitting the fan in all sorts of areas.

If anyone is considering providing feedback to the CPS they might want to remind them of how much egg they had on their faces after their ridiculous attempt to prosecute Miranda Yardley of transphobic hate speech or whatever the bullshit charges were.

Well...ms Hayden knows more about crime than me but perhaps we should be kind and not talk in soundbites for tomorrow's pink news

NoSharon

She was given a conditional discharge.

Why, in your opinion, does she deserve this? Have you followed the trial? Do you know that. Hayden defended the gassings by the nazis? That hayden stelked Kate and admitted as much in court?

I'm genuinely interested in why yu think Kate deserves this

In a way, she got off lightly. A court ordered her to desist and she didn’t.

Defiance of the justice system can go down very badly.

Fatty being a dreadful undesirable doesn’t mean Ms Scottow isn’t guilty. You are not supposed to harass bad people.

Curious contrast between the Scottow and Miller cases. My understanding is that in the Scottow case, the judge said it didn't matter that Kate didn't direct stuff at Hayden - the fact that she wrote them meant that they could be picked up by anyone as Twitter is a public forum.

The judge in the Miller case said the exact opposite, namely that Miller's tweets were for his followers, not for a wider audience:

twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1228286850223177728/photo/1

As I understand it she responded in kind to her stalker. Women are not allowed to do that.

She was found guilty of the crime. Correctly imo.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!

Oh - what was her sentence?

VMMV: HQ were clear that all views should be equally expressed here. That's a point of view.

However may be a good idea to explain your pov and what it adds to the discussion, as a one liner just dropped on the thread like that can otherwise look a bit goady and intended to cause trouble. Which I'm sure wasn't your intent. And of course as the judge instructed, being kind is important. I don't think he meant that's a burden to be carried exclusively by GC women.

I have kittens as needed.

NoSharon

Pray tell how is the verdict correct.

And yes an appeal has been confirmed and Kate was sentenced today al 10.30am.

You're not very up to date on the story are you?

Has it been confirmed that there will be an appeal? Otherwise it's just the sentencing hearing up next.

That is one of the ways the media influences first impressions of people who skim the news or do not know the parties involved.
They do not come right out and say this person has our respect and that one does not

Sorry, but that's total rubbish - papers when reporting usually do refer to the defendant by their surname.
It's a totally normal thing to do. Nothing to do with "this person has our respect and that one does not"