[News] Mike Amesbury MP - Rocky VIII: Backbench Brawler

[happypig]

Point of order, legal aid lawyers are not shitty. The volume of work is almost unworkable.
Thanks to the Tories, legal aid has been cut to the bone, so hardly available.

From what I am reading, my opinion is Amesbury has offered to do the alcohol course, and anger management course plus community service in exchange for prison. The Crown Court judge has accepted it. One missed session and it will be prison recall.

Not necessarily.
People often breach for reasons outside their control (or they perceive its outside their control), for example probation have 8 spaces on an unpaid work duty but they tell 10 people to turn up for it; the last two to turn up are sent home with no hours credited. After the second or third time this happens, they think "sod it" and have a lie in, thus breaching.
It's usual for a first breach to be marked by allowing the order to continue with added sessions of unpaid work or whatever.

 

[happypig]

…and you don’t reckon that politicians don’t lean on the judiciary…

I cannot speak for higher courts but magistrates are fiercely independent and anyone trying to lean on them would get short shrift.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

…and you don’t reckon that politicians don’t lean on the judiciary…

How would they do that?

 

[LamieRobertson]

How would they do that?

So you reckon that someone like Starmer hasn’t got any sway over the judiciary

Ok sure …we mustn’t have all that silly talk about two tier stuff …isn’t that right Harry

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So you reckon that someone like Starmer hasn’t got any sway over the judiciary

Ok sure …we mustn’t have all that silly talk about two tier stuff …isn’t that right Harry

The laws that people were charged with in 2024 were there before the general election. No new laws were passed after July.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The laws that people were charged with in 2024 were there before the general election. No new laws were passed after July.

Not saying they weren’t …it’s how they are applied

 

[WATFORD zero]

Not saying they weren’t …it’s how they are applied

I'm sorry but if you really believe that the PM, (or any PM of any party in living memory) can affect how the judiciary works on an individual case, you are so, so wrong.

Sorry

 

[LamieRobertson]

I'm sorry but if you really believe that the PM, (any PM of any party in living memory) can affect how the judiciary works on an individual case, you are so, so wrong.

Sorry

Sorry but I think you are…

….now off to other things …ta ta

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm sorry but if you really believe that the PM, (or any PM of any party in living memory) can affect how the judiciary works on an individual case, you are so, so wrong.

Sorry

Edited

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Sorry but I think you are…

….now off to other things …ta ta

You have literally argued with a magistrate.

 

[Professor Plum]

I cannot speak for higher courts but magistrates are fiercely independent and anyone trying to lean on them would get short shrift.

Governments can’t interfere in how the law is interpreted or how guilt or innocence is established but they absolutely can and do interfere regarding sentencing. This is a matter of recorded fact, not argument. The classic case is the London riots in 2011 when Cameron and other government ministers issued a series of statements promising draconian sentences for anyone taking part. These speeches were turned into actual guidelines issued to the courts, resulting in a long list of outrageous sentences like the student jailed for 2 years for picking up a bottle of water from the wreckage of a looted shop. And there was the case of a mother sent to jail for 6 months for accepting a pair of underpants someone had taken from a shop. She lost custody of her kids. Almost no one who was arrested for an alleged offence was granted bail. They all spent time in custody awaiting trial regardless of severity of the offence. It was later found that sentences were 5 times more severe than comparable offences over the previous year.

Something similar happened with the demonstrations following the recent murders of the children in Southport. Sir Keir’s fury seemed to be directed at the demonstrators rather than the alleged murderer. The language he used about protestors ‘bitterly regretting’ taking part was turned into some equally disproportionate punishments. These have been written about a lot over the past few months and are easy to find.

I’m not making a point about this violent Labour MP. That appears to be a one-off though if you read the judge’s remarks after the initial sentence you get a very clear explanation for why he thought a custodial sentence was justified. The remarks seemed well-reasoned though the 10 week sentence did seem a bit harsh to me TBH. He spent 3 nights in prison and seems certain to lose his job which seems enough of a punishment IMO.

 

[Hiheidi]

 

[The Rivet]

Hmm indeed.... 'Violent disorder'.
Anyhow regardless of the pedantic arguments about the machinations of the law the perception of this was always going to be, well, colourful.
Justice has moved swift for Amesbury and that raises eyebrows in itself. The fact the same judge who allowed the appeal (and issued a suspended sentence instead) had sentenced someone to 30mths over just a 'post', makes it 'questionable' for a lot of people. Like it or not this will be put down to 'two tier justice' and the blame laid at Starmer's feet, unavoidable, regardless of arguments. 'Perceptions', a powerful thing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Governments can’t interfere in how the law is interpreted or how guilt or innocence is established but they absolutely can and do interfere regarding sentencing. This is a matter of recorded fact, not argument. The classic case is the London riots in 2011 when Cameron and other government ministers issued a series of statements promising draconian sentences for anyone taking part. These speeches were turned into actual guidelines issued to the courts, resulting in a long list of outrageous sentences like the student jailed for 2 years for picking up a bottle of water from the wreckage of a looted shop. And there was the case of a mother sent to jail for 6 months for accepting a pair of underpants someone had taken from a shop. She lost custody of her kids. Almost no one who was arrested for an alleged offence was granted bail. They all spent time in custody awaiting trial regardless of severity of the offence. It was later found that sentences were 5 times more severe than comparable offences over the previous year.

Something similar happened with the demonstrations following the recent murders of the children in Southport. Sir Keir’s fury seemed to be directed at the demonstrators rather than the alleged murderer. The language he used about protestors ‘bitterly regretting’ taking part was turned into some equally disproportionate punishments. These have been written about a lot over the past few months and are easy to find.

I’m not making a point about this violent Labour MP. That appears to be a one-off though if you read the judge’s remarks after the initial sentence you get a very clear explanation for why he thought a custodial sentence was justified. The remarks seemed well-reasoned though the 10 week sentence did seem a bit harsh to me TBH. He spent 3 nights in prison and seems certain to lose his job which seems enough of a punishment IMO.

I think you’re confusing the 2011 sentencing reforms with the riot. The magistrates and judges were, and are, independent of government.

 

[cunning fergus]

Hmm indeed.... 'Violent disorder'.
Anyhow regardless of the pedantic arguments about the machinations of the law the perception of this was always going to be, well, colourful.
Justice has moved swift for Amesbury and that raises eyebrows in itself. The fact the same judge who allowed the appeal (and issued a suspended sentence instead) had sentenced someone to 30mths over just a 'post', makes it 'questionable' for a lot of people. Like it or not this will be put down to 'two tier justice' and the blame laid at Starmer's feet, unavoidable, regardless of arguments. 'Perceptions', a powerful thing.

Let’s be honest in any other circumstance, ten weeks inside for violent disorder is a lenient sentence. Given Yvette Coopers comments about the case, I think senior Labour figures were comfortable with the imposition of a custodial sentence and potentially a by election. With their present majority the loss of one seat is not a biggie, so in the court of public opinion better to cut Amesbury loose with a flea in his ear.

On that basis I don’t think any senior Labour Party official is in the background pulling strings, the potential risks of that collusion being exposed would surely be way to great for such little return, and a torpedo for this government’s image of integrity with the general public.

Nonetheless perhaps it’s the judiciary/establishment itself that has intervened, as it has previously (Keith Vaz and the expenses scandal springs to mind). In this context I can imagine Labour would be rightly furious about the optics of this case as it definitely creates the impression of two teir justice.

In his statement re the suspension of the custodial sentance the Judge referenced “important change” taking place since the initial sentance.

As a KC I would expect Starmer to present o the public that the courts can be relied on as independent arbiters of justice, and yet for many they will see his sticky fingers all over this case.

 

[Gwylan]

Let’s be honest in any other circumstance, ten weeks inside for violent disorder is a lenient sentence. Given Yvette Coopers comments about the case, I think senior Labour figures were comfortable with the imposition of a custodial sentence and potentially a by election. With their present majority the loss of one seat is not a biggie, so in the court of public opinion better to cut Amesbury loose with a flea in his ear.

On that basis I don’t think any senior Labour Party official is in the background pulling strings, the potential risks of that collusion being exposed would surely be way to great for such little return, and a torpedo for this government’s image of integrity with the general public.

This is surely true, something that the people coming out with half-baked comments about the government leaning on the judiciary would do well to consider. Apart from the barmy idea that judges do what the government wish, there's the question of why the government would want a suspended sentence.

Labour would welcome a by-election: they'd want the chance to win the seat back. Why on earth would they strive to keep a non-Labour MP in his seat? Maybe they'll still get one, there's still the possibility of a recall petition, a sentence being suspended doesn't preclude one.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I've just been reading back over the appeal hearing. It's interesting that the magistrate mentioned the victim, Paul Fellows, and Amesbury were at school together, and Amesbury definitely said, 'you won't threaten your MP again, will you'.
Yes, he pleaded guilty to assault, (not ABH or GBH) but the magistrate said the prolonged assault made him culpable, in the sentencing hearing.

I can see why the suspended sentence was granted especially with the acceptance of an anger management course, and an alcohol monitoring programme as well as 20 days rehabilitation work.

Hopefully, he will resign now to save his constituents organising a recall petition.

 

[jcdenton08]

I'm sorry but if you really believe that the PM, (or any PM of any party in living memory) can affect how the judiciary works on an individual case, you are so, so wrong.

Sorry

They can.

The Home Secretary reports to the PM. If the PM wants the HS to intervene on an issue, they can, have, and will continue to do that

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They can.

The Home Secretary reports to the PM. If the PM wants the HS to intervene on an issue, they can, have, and will continue to do that

Who reports it to the Home Secretary? The judge? Attorney General?

 

[jcdenton08]

Who reports it to the Home Secretary? The judge? Attorney General?

Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense.

The Home Secretary, acting under their authority given by their appointment to the cabinet by the PM, is able to intervene in the administration of justice. They can intervene on the grounds of the administration of criminal justice, national security issues, deportation and immigration cases and cases in the “public interest”.

The eagle-eyed among us may have noticed the above clauses cover just about every single circumstance.

There have been cases in the past when the Home Secretary has personally intervened in the courts, and it will happen again, I’m not saying it has happened in this case, but I’m pointing out that politicians absolutely have and can alter the administration of justice.