4 yrs for cutting down tree, no jail time for rape

[Barnbrack]

Why are 2 men being given custodial sentences for cutting down a tree when men convicted of rape regularly get suspended sentences.

Is an important tree more important than a random woman! Justice system seems to think so.

I'm not Scottish so I'm not as aware of the issues there but I wholeheartedly agree with you. That pair deserve everything they get and giving them a lighter sentence won't help the victims of rape but rape and violent crimes need to have longer sentences.

@Gloriia its 13 pages it is quite succinct. I mean don’t bother reading it but don’t judge the sentence unless you have. It really is that simple

We jail more per capita than other European countries because we have more criminals than other European countries.

We seems to be in the middle in the data I have seen (and way under the US)

What you’re missing is an understanding of English law and our judicial system.

It's a real shame the court and the NT didn't have your expertise on hand. The whole thing could have been dispensed with in no time and virtually no cost and the judge could have learnt a thing or two.

Facts? Reckon we know all we need to know. Tree. Chopped down.

Deliberation? Nah, who needs to think about anything that might contradict their 100% certain cast-iron confidence.

Importance of tree? Nice, but just a tree. End of. Anyone who thinks to the contrary is quite clearly wrong.

Wall? Find someone who does wall stuff online, bag of cement from the builder's merchant. Couple of hundred quid, tops.

Sentence? Bit of sweeping.

Simples!

Or maybe we have more excitable judges who give custodial sentences for vandalism.

'It's a real shame the court and the NT didn't have your expertise on hand. The whole thing could have been dispensed with in no time and virtually no cost and the judge could have learnt a thing or two.'

Very true.

Yeah you really don’t get the way the legal system works

Yeah I just don't agree with the sentence.

But you have read the sentencing guidelines/Criminal Damage Act 1971 or the sentencing judgment correct?

I was dubious but looking at the above made me understand why.

Researching the judge and her verdicts also helped.

reading (social) media gives a biased viewpoint it is always best to look at the judgments etc

You do know though that judges are constrained by statute law? Yes we have a common law system but Statutes are king.

You’re flogging a dead horse @Tiswa.

Yes I agree!

But statue can be questioned and should be if it doesn’t reflect society’s vakues

Yes by Parliamentp

Informed by discussion such as this

the point being that not knowing the details of the sentencing guidelines doesn’t really matter in terms of looking at people’s views on what they should be

Conor McGregor. Convicted rapi&t. 0 prison time.

Nope, not convicted, nor prosecuted. He was successfully sued for damages. Also, it was in Ireland, so different legal system.

Yeah but I doubt most people, who take the time to inform themselves a little, really think that doing tens of thousands worth of property damage, purely because they revel in pissing people off, should get community service.

Personally, given the amount of "pranksters" who revel at the prospect of "internet fame", I think there's a lot to be said for a harsher sentence than if it were damage to somebody's house. Give scumbags like these a slap on the wrist and you'll end up with all sorts of landmarks getting trashed.

But what can the judge do but follow the statutory guidelines? Criminal Damage was common law but was set out in legislation in 1971?

There is an argument maybe that the damage level of £5000 between summary and indictable offence should be raised (not sure when it last was) but even so the damage here would always be an indictable offence.

Judges have to follow legislation - the rules of interpretation of the law which allows some flexibility

'Yeah but I doubt most people, who take the time to inform themselves a little, really think that doing tens of thousands worth of property damage, purely because they revel in pissing people off, should get community service'

We're all informed, it's been reported on the news. We don't have to read court transcripts to have an opinion.

People get suspended sentences, fines and community hours for far worse than property damage. We all know this. I've no idea why some are being so disingenuous.

@Gloriia because the news is biased, the sentencing sets it out clearly and based on this very few actually know how the legislature/parliament/government/judiciary works and statute and common law interaction - which is why I don’t have issue with 16 years old voting

Had Robin Hood not been filmed there, no one would have even heard of the place.
Its hardly the Pyramids is it? The wall suffered minimal damage, its a very small dry stone wall, the type of which is found all over many landscapes around the UK.

No one is saying they shouldn't be punished either.

But imho prison should only be for the most serious of offences, in itself, felling a tree, with a TPO, is a finable offence, up to £15k.

I think a 2 year community order with a large fine, working for the NT would have been a better punishment, done them a lot of good and saved the tax payer too, these men are apparently skilled tree surgeons, their skill set should be used for the benefit of the NT and the countryside, whilst also providing a suitable punishment.

BTW if the sentencing guidelines prevent this, maybe they need to be changed?

Why criminal damage is a serious crime and should at the highest level carry a prison sentence

as I said earlier we have 4 categories of prisons they are unlikely to be taking the place of a violent offender

Had Robin Hood not been filmed there, no one would have even heard of the place.

It was world famous long before the film was made and beloved by thousands of people who have never seen it. I’m one of them.