WARNING UPSETTING CONTENT - Ian Watkins to be sentenced this afternoon

[hobnobsaremyfavourite]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25412675
Could this vile excuse for a human being sink any lower? His defense team pleading that he is a suicide risk and so very sory for his crime whilst he "LOL's" down a phone to a "Young fan". WTAF is he doing being allowed to contact young fans.
I hope he never leaves prison.

The guidelines for sex crimes have recently been made a lot harsher. However I don't think they are due to come into force until next Spring. Some judges have been ignoring this though and are sentencing within the new guidelines already.

I don't know if the judge in this case did that but I suspect he may have done.

I have a feeling that it might be extradition rather than further crimes being tried here. I suspect that if he has the prospect of life in a US supermax prison looming he will just kill himself.

hothead he could be tried again for different crimes. Stephen Barker had two trials over the killing of Baby P and the rape. Also Levi Bellfield was convicted of the hammer murders but not for killing Milly Dowler until years later.

The difference is that Watkins other victims may well be overseas and I think it could well come down to him being extradited to face trial there. I don't think he could be tried here for things that happened in the US with US accomplices.

"And I think the point about legal professionals wanting to win regardless of their moral duty is an interesting one too..."

But his barrister isn't trying to win anything.
He's pleaded guilty there's nothing to win.
Also barristers and lawyers in general do no such thing. Our moral compas doesn't come into it, we don't decide on guilt, we don't decide the facts. We act upon clients instructions and apply the law.

Mayor, given the circumstances and his comments in the PSR report, i'm surprised that the judge did not impose an indeterminate bearing in mind the judgement discusses his consideration of qn IS. Any thoughts ?

None specifically tbh.
I practice in a different jurisdiction and haven't followed the trial particularly closely (in particular I have decided not to read the facts/judgment linked on this thread and other places I've seen)
I have no problem with others decreeing him as scum (he is) or saying he should never see the light of day, I just commented in relation to the criticism of his barrister in his plea of mitigation.

I just hope he doesn't end up on a sex offenders unit where he becomes a celebrity.

Earlier on Wednesday, defending barrister Sally O'Neill QC how Watkins "belatedly realised the gravity of what happened" and was "deeply, deeply sorry". - That is clearly prime horse-shit when his taped phone call shows the complete opposite.

It is capable of being true, however. He could have "belatedly" realised the gravity etc after the phone call.

I've phrased this carefully because I personally don't believe it, manifestly the judge didn't, in fact there is probably no-one in the world who believes it, including his barrister. However, he has told her that that is the case and, as she doesn't have a mind probe, she can't say 100% that it is untrue. Therefore she has a duty to put it forward. For all we know, she told the client that it was a waste of time and might count against him, but if he insisted that it was true and he wanted her to put it forward, she had to do so.

This is, quite simply, absolutely not an example of a barrister trying to win at all costs (and I don't believe that happens anyway). Once the client has been found guilty, there is nothing to win. The best the barrister can do is have a go at getting a reduction in the sentence, but they really aren't going to be breaking open the champagne at getting a slightly shorter sentence than might otherwise be the case.

Question for the legal people:
What possible motive did IW have for pleading guilty?
He said he was innocent for so long and pleaded guilty so late that it did not get him a reduced sentence.

Just wondering.

His sentence was reduced by 10% even though the plea was late.

It would still reduce his sentence, he'd still get some credit for it.
It also means you can put to the court that he's showing remorse or accepting the wrong he's committed etc in a stronger way than is possible if he runs a full trial and loses.

Haven't had time to read through everything but the comment someone made last night about there being an interview (video I think?) online with apparently obvious signs rest of band knew what was happening - do people think the police are aware of it?

Sorry if I'm bring naive - one wd assume they do??- but woke up this morning feeling v uneasy about it...

Has anyone reported it?? Kind of feel I need to, although am not prepared the search for it / watch it so not sure what I'd be reporting...

Christmas - can you advise if you work for police?? Thanks.

From what I've been told the band were aware that he was into some dark sexual things and perhaps drug problems but nothing like this.
So they knew something was off but had no idea of the nature of the stuff.
From what I can tell his reputation was that of a fucked up front man who screwed around and may not have been the most respectful of women.

"Does this set a precedent for longer sentences for similar cases from now on does anyone know? It seems like it should."

No. The sentencing remarks (linked and discussed above) include the reasoning for the length of sentences. They are all within the guidelines currently in force, as will sentences for any cases which might arising in future.

Oh, thanks.

If he had plead guilty earlier (say, on being charged) what kind of sentence reduction could he have expected?

Remember also that the barrister has a duty to defend any defendant robustly so that there is no risk of retrial and further trauma for the victims / being released on technicality etc.

Question for the legal people:
What possible motive did IW have for pleading guilty?
He said he was innocent for so long and pleaded guilty so late that it did not get him a reduced sentence.

I'm not a legal person but I have skimmed this case since he was arrested as I have a fan in the house and wanted to be aware of what sort of thing they were accessing online.

Quite some time before his arrest some rather unsavoury photos emerged online and were published by Perez Hilton amongst others. Watkins implied at the time that as he was a graphic designer he was fully aware of how images may not be real. I understand that this was his position with regard to the video that the police found that was central to the case. I have read that he claimed that the video was faked until the point that the expert evidence was able to demonstrate without a shadow of doubt that it was Watkins

Hence the guilty plea, probably to try to reduce the sentence and possibly to spare the jury but I'm not convinced he was too bothered by the feelings of others

The fan in the house is not a fan any more by the way

He got a 10% discount in his sentence despite his late plea as did one of the women. The other got a third discount due to her guilty plea at the earliest opportunity

nappyrat yes I do

Just a point on the pleading at the last minute - this is really, really common. Defendants will wait and wait to see if witnesses are really going to testify against them (if they don't the case may collapse), wait to see the result of some forensics, all sorts of reasons. Or finally the enormity of what they have done hits them when they get in the court room and realise that it's game over.

I imagine that he knew he would be found guilty and possibly did not want to hear the details of his sordid life gone over with a fine toothcomb in public.

I imagine the fallout for the jury would have been monumental in terms of counselling etc had it gone to a full trial. They would have seen and heard things that no one ever should, or could ever forget.