This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/stuart-hall-sentence-judge-wrong

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Stuart Hall's sentence is unduly lenient – the judge got it wrong Stuart Hall's sentence is unduly lenient – the judge got it wrong
(35 minutes later)
It's a rare day when Harriet Harman and the Daily Mail agree. But in their reaction to the sentencing of Stuart Hall to 15 months in jail for multiple counts of child sexual abuse, they are united. Both believe the punishment – which will see Hall's time in prison automatically reduced to seven and a half months – is "unduly lenient." And they're both right. It's a rare day when Harriet Harman and the Daily Mail agree. But in their reaction to the sentencing of Stuart Hall to 15 months in jail for multiple counts of child sexual abuse, they are united. Both believe the punishment – which will see Hall's time in prison automatically reduced to seven and a half months – is "unduly lenient". And they're both right.
If you read the judge's sentencing statement closely you can see how he arrived at such a modest penalty. A crucial element was the "discount" awarded for a guilty plea, which reduced the time Hall could have served by a quarter. There can be few complaints about the principle of such a policy: a guilty plea spares victims the pain of having to give testimony in court.If you read the judge's sentencing statement closely you can see how he arrived at such a modest penalty. A crucial element was the "discount" awarded for a guilty plea, which reduced the time Hall could have served by a quarter. There can be few complaints about the principle of such a policy: a guilty plea spares victims the pain of having to give testimony in court.
But two other decisions by the judge are much harder to defend. The first was his ruling that Hall should serve time for each of his 14 counts of indecent assault concurrently rather than consecutively. Had the former TV presenter had to serve each sentence back to back he would, by my reckoning, have been ordered to spend just short of 10 years behind bars. Even after the automatic reduction, that would still have been a hefty five years in prison.But two other decisions by the judge are much harder to defend. The first was his ruling that Hall should serve time for each of his 14 counts of indecent assault concurrently rather than consecutively. Had the former TV presenter had to serve each sentence back to back he would, by my reckoning, have been ordered to spend just short of 10 years behind bars. Even after the automatic reduction, that would still have been a hefty five years in prison.
To opt for concurrent rather than consecutive sentences was entirely the judge's decision. Indeed he admitted that, "Undoubtedly, applying general sentencing principles, consecutive sentences could properly be imposed". If he had followed those general principles, Hall's punishment would have looked much more fitting – and sent the message to other victims, and perpetrators, that the justice system takes the abuse of children seriously. To opt for concurrent rather than consecutive sentences was entirely the judge's decision. Indeed he admitted that, "undoubtedly, applying general sentencing principles, consecutive sentences could properly be imposed". If he had followed those general principles, Hall's punishment would have looked much more fitting – and sent the message to other victims, and perpetrators, that the justice system takes the abuse of children seriously.
But it's the second factor that weighed on Judge Anthony Russell that puzzles me most. As the judge put it, addressing Hall in a poorly worded sentence, "Your age is an appropriate factor to take into account because for a man of your age a custodial sentence would be particularly difficult for you." Many people will accept this logic, regarding it as inhumane to be too harsh with a man of 83. But it's the second factor that weighed on Judge Anthony Russell that puzzles me most. As the judge put it, addressing Hall in a poorly worded sentence: "Your age is an appropriate factor to take into account because for a man of your age a custodial sentence would be particularly difficult for you." Many people will accept this logic, regarding it as inhumane to be too harsh with a man of 83.
And yet it is a strange logic. The implication is that because Stuart Hall got away with it for so long, he should be punished less. If anything, Hall's years of impunity surely make the need for punishment greater. How galling for the victims, who have wrestled for decades with the psychological damage of his abuse, to know that in those same years, Hall was able to enjoy a life of peace, serenity and public admiration. Why should the fact that he eluded justice so long make his sentence lighter? And yet it is a strange logic. The implication is that because Hall got away with it for so long, he should be punished less. If anything, Hall's years of impunity surely make the need for punishment greater. How galling for the victims, who have wrestled for decades with the psychological damage of his abuse, to know that in those same years, Hall was able to enjoy a life of peace, serenity and public admiration. Why should the fact that he eluded justice so long make his sentence lighter?
The judge got this one wrong. The attorney general is right to review it.The judge got this one wrong. The attorney general is right to review it.
Twitter: @j_freedland