Calendar reported last night the judge in the case had changed. The Judge who had said the pair were looking at spending time behind bars had changed at sentencing

What did he change into? Was he manimal?

Are you trying to say it was a different judge that dealt with sentencing from the one who tried the case?

Our discussion will be much easier if you adopt the use of English.

yes, thats what I meant

Are you saying the judge should wear the same clothes until they are sentenced?

One or two of the foisty old fekkers could do with a change.

Are we on about judges now or your gruds?

He could have don it during the last game, and they would have still won

I'd have thought it'd generally be a good idea if the trial judge, who sat through the presentation of all the evidence, was also in place for sentencing.

If Ben Cockayne didn't go to prison for his assault then it would have been grossly unfair for Pryce to be imprisoned based on the details that have emerged.

I still think a system where individuals decide sentences is basically flawed and gives an unacceptable inequality in decisions.

Individuals who follow guidelines put in place by a vast legal concensus. Individuals who can be challenged at appeal if their judgement is seen to be outside normal established guidlines. Ultimately a decision if contentious can be decided by a panel of judges, law Lords or the European Court.

That only applies if they are convicted following a trial. When its a guilty plea the Judge/Magistrates that sentence hear all the evidence that was presented at the earlier hearing. It may be preferable for the same Judge/Magistrates to carry out sentencing but the logistics of making that happen every time would be a nightmare.

I think rather too much is being made of the original judge's comments. Judge's/Magistrates are required to give an indication of the sentencing options being considered before adjourning for reports. In particular they must state whether custody is being considered. The Judge/Magistrates that actually sentence are not supposed to impose a sentence that is more severe than that indicated, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

It may well be the case that the original Judge was actual leaning towards community sentences but did not want to restrict his options in case the probation reports were negative.

Whats the reason for the 4 week gap between the judgement and the sentancing?

I would guess at pre-sentencing reports, etc, so the judge could fully consider the sort of people he was dealing with. Stuff like that will have an impact on the sentence handed down.

To allow for the Probation service to interview the defendents and carry out an assessment. They look at things such as the degree of remorse, likelihood of reoffending, factors affecting offending such as drink or drugs. They also assess the defendants suitability for various community sentences. They usually will recommend which community sentences are the most suitable but these recommendations are not binding. They usually take a bit longer in cases of domestic violense.

What if a defendant (not necessarily in this case but just generally) was sat there smirking or looking at witnesses in a threatening manner throughout their trial? I'd like to think that such court demeanour was taken into account when it came to sentencing and I'd imagine that would be best achieved by the trial judge. Just a layman's point of view.

It makes you think that Bailey and Walker were either unlucky or did something worse than Mr Cockayne

If a defendant was convicted following a trial he/she would be sentenced by the trial judge.

.....as had already been explained further up the thread.

So they could track down Leon?

As I said earlier it was a general comment but even where there is a gap between trial and sentencing (for pre- sentencing reports etc) I would still imagine that wherever possible it would be preferable for the trial judge to follow the case through to sentencing.

fair point, it's not impartial.
yet you seem happy to believe "what you were told", so hearsay and tittle tattle is ok and must be the truth then

By which time you have most likely spent unnecessary time depriced of your liberty!!

Read the YEP and the sentances given out by Hoffman and compare to similar offences and the sentances doled out by others.

Read any local paper at the judgements - driving without insurance should be a really simply judgement 1st time £100, second time £200 etc but look at the desparity - a judicial system needs to be transperent and equitable

So you wouldn't differentiate between being a day late with a renewal, and driving for weeks with no intention of insuring?

Beside the point, but the size of fine you propose would make it cheaper to go without that actually get insured.

nope. you should be insured if driving. it's the drivers responsibility to be insured

The fines for driving without insurance should be a lot higher than the premium would be for the car/driver without the insurance. A fine of £100 is hardly going to make someone who had a £2000 premium get insurance!