Brothers Jailed After Mocking Judge Who Let Them Off

[DTMark]

Two brothers hauled back to court for mocking a judge on Facebook after she decided not to send them to prison for drug dealing have now been jailed for two years.

Priceless.

The power of social media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12174825/Brothers-jailed-after-mocking-judge-who-let-them-off.html

[The Knimbies who say No]

I'm sure the school he 'studied' at will be proud of their alumnus raising its profile.

[knock out johnny]

I'm sure the school he 'studied' at will be proud of their alumnus raising its profile.

Not to mention his employer for employing him as a "sh!tty assembler at accrington frames and furnishings"

[interestrateripoff]

Jailed for stupidity. I wonder how many criminals are caught by them posting evidence on social media?

[JoeDavola]

I don't like to gloat. But I'll make an exception in this case.

[ARIMA]

I'm all for sending chavs to jail, but this makes no sense to me. Appeciate there's a bit if an art to it, but surely sentancing shouldn't be this whimsical. Apply the appropriate sentance in court, and aside from some shocking new confession I'm not sure what gloating on fb has to do with anything.

[Frank Hovis]

I'm all for sending chavs to jail, but this makes no sense to me. Appeciate there's a bit if an art to it, but surely sentancing shouldn't be this whimsical. Apply the appropriate sentance in court, and aside from some shocking new confession I'm not sure what gloating on fb has to do with anything.

Judges and Magistrates like to feel like they have the power of small gods.

By their grace and judgement people are ruined or saved.

If they like them they save them. She liked them because they thought they liked her and she relished her power of giving them redemption. When she realised that it was just an act she then ruined them.

Playground stuff.

[MattW]

Serves the pair both right, well done judge.

After 2 years I expect they will soon be dealing drugs again from the Max Power'd Skoda Fabia 1.4.

[JoeDavola]

Actually, you're correct. They basically got thrown in jail for being rude. In other words, you didn't grovel/weren't humble enough. Which shouldn't have anything to do with your sentence.

[mikthe20]

Jailed for stupidity. I wonder how many criminals are caught by them posting evidence on social media?

There are specialist companies which have social media monitoring systems to help the police catch criminals (not just terrorists). Not simply admission or stupidity like this, but finding posts which show where a person was or wasn't at certain times, that sort of thing. All very clever.

[Steppenpig]

Having read the article, it seems that the judge doubted the defendents' remorse and contrition.

Don't know much about legal stuff, but I suspect the court can review the "suspended" aspect for whatever reason it feels.

[ARIMA]

Having read the article, it seems that the judge doubted the defendents' remorse and contrition.

Don't know much about legal stuff, but I suspect the court can review the "suspended" aspect for whatever reason it feels.

My point is that the defendant's "remorse and contribution" shouldn't be that much of a factor on the sentencing. Should be more factual based e.g. Is it your first offence. Otherwise we will be varying sentances based on people's relative acting ability, which is clearly nonsense.

[Rave]

The real outrage is that anybody is getting 2 years for dealing cannabis. It sounds like this lad is an objectionable little herbert, but he does by the looks of things have a job, whether he likes it or not. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for about £60k to lock him and his brother up for 8 months or more, with a bunch of potentially much worse offenders.

I've always been in favour of drug legalisation, but the older I get the less tolerant of the current regime I become. The current system is basically: force people to pay tax, which the government then uses to pay policemen to arrest people for taking substances which may harm them but which are very unlikely to cause harm to anybody else; thereby taking away their autonomy/ freedom of choice.

There's a word to describe people who think that's a decent system. And that word is Arsehole.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Exactly. In fact it used to be the case you couldn't be judged twice for the same crime. Thanks Tony.

Yup, fair points to all above. I guess there is a precedent just gagging to be set by someone with sufficient funds to take it on.

[DTMark]

My point is that the defendant's "remorse and contribution" shouldn't be that much of a factor on the sentencing. Should be more factual based e.g. Is it your first offence. Otherwise we will be varying sentances based on people's relative acting ability, which is clearly nonsense.

Agree with that. Though perhaps remorse is a valid factor to take into account to some degree. But then Frank's point is incisive and I suspect possibly very accurate.

The real outrage is that anybody is getting 2 years for dealing cannabis

Quite so.

That, and that weed remains illegal while alcohol remains legal.

[Steppenpig]

Looking at press reports from the original trial, apparently police found "hundreds" of pounds worth of cannabis in the house, which they had raided on a number of occasions.

http://www.accringtonobserver.co.uk/news/judge-blasts-father-who-allowed-10832711

http://www.thelancasterandmorecambecitizen.co.uk/news/14256605.Dad_let_his_sons_deal_cannabis_from_house/

[DTMark]

Just one person can smoke "hundreds of pounds" worth of cannabis in less than a month.

It looks like they were very small-time dealers. Don't get me wrong, this isn't "love a chav" week, but I can see nothing to suggest that either they, or their customers, who appear to be mostly their mates (and the trading may well have gone in both directions at times if as I suspect they all used it) were any particular danger to society.

They just happened to get caught.

For heavens sake just legalise it.

[SarahBell]

Just one person can smoke "hundreds of pounds" worth of cannabis in less than a month.

And keep a job in order to pay for it?

And be safe to drive?

[knock out johnny]

Two feral chavs are locked up for awhile - what's not to like? The fact incarceration costs taxpayers' money is part and parcel of the legal justice system of a modern developed society

Sentencing is meant to reflect the seriousness of the crime AND the remorse of the perpetrator - they clearly had not a shred and delibrately misled the court - they could be done for contempt of court so they should count themselves lucky that charge wasn't added

[thombleached]

The real outrage is that anybody is getting 2 years for dealing cannabis. It sounds like this lad is an objectionable little herbert, but he does by the looks of things have a job, whether he likes it or not. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for about £60k to lock him and his brother up for 8 months or more, with a bunch of potentially much worse offenders.

I've always been in favour of drug legalisation, but the older I get the less tolerant of the current regime I become. The current system is basically: force people to pay tax, which the government then uses to pay policemen to arrest people for taking substances which may harm them but which are very unlikely to cause harm to anybody else; thereby taking away their autonomy/ freedom of choice.

There's a word to describe people who think that's a decent system. And that word is Arsehole.

Bob on.

With the psychoactive substances bill now passed, we're potentially making tens of thousands of UK citizens criminals for purchasing substances that don't have strong lobbying budgets. I can't believe that in the 21st century cannabis is still a controlled substance.

Legalise everything, tax it all.

[happy_renting]

Exactly. In fact it used to be the case you couldn't be judged twice for the same crime. Thanks Tony.

Sinister as Tony's double jeapordy law is, I don't think it applies here.

The chavs were arguably in contempt of court, and consider what the word suspended in 'suspended sentence' implies.

I would argue that one of the purposes of any criminal sentence is to instil regret in a criminal. The judge adjusted the thermostat because the chavs were a little too cool about things.

[Turned Out Nice Again]

With a whole bunch of new controlled substances, new classes of illegal porn since 2008, "hate" speech laws and the ever-expanding definition of rape, you'd be forgiven for thinking that there is a plan to create a UK prison sub-state for young men.

[Executive Sadman]

Playa has a Skoda Fabia...dats 'ballin.

[Executive Sadman]

With a whole bunch of new controlled substances, new classes of illegal porn since 2008, "hate" speech laws and the ever-expanding definition of rape, you'd be forgiven for thinking that there is a plan to create a UK prison sub-state for young men.

Nah, just fine them at any given opportunity, a shadow tax system.

A bit like how after ferguson they found drivers being used to subsidize the PD.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/10/20/3713968/ferguson-charlack-police-consolidation/

[DTMark]

And keep a job in order to pay for it?

Yes.

And be safe to drive?

I suppose "safe" is a relative term, but I'd say, no less safe than someone who knocks back most of a bottle of wine every evening and drives first thing in the morning. There's also tolerance to consider, tolerance to weed builds very similarly and quickly to that of alcohol.

I'd hazard a guess that a full ounce of weed would cost around £180 to £200 these days.

I think that even the Police guidance implies that this is not a very large quantity nor does being caught with that much imply that it's for anything other than personal use.

However these characters were repeat offenders, with clear evidence of 'dealing' - though I'd suggest there's a difference between "getting weed with and for your mates" and "running a drug dealing business" and without more case details it's hard to say which of those descriptions applies most accurately here.