Dave Lee Travis sentence to be subject to appeal by CPS

CPS have declared the sentence to be 'unduly lenient'.

Will be reviewed next month. After his celebratory performance on the court steps stating that he was glad and that the case should never have made it to court - i do hope he gets potted.

Vile man.

 

I hope the witch hunt should now stop.
Whatever you think about the man, it is done, over with , well at least it should be. 2 trials and 14 charges !!!!!

Some people will not ever be satisfied until he and all the others that have been let off (sic)are in prison, they seem to believe that the justice system should only work one way !!

 

Mm

Easy for perpetrators to become the victims by hiding behind the 'witch hunt' argument. Suspended sentences should be for perpetrators who show remorse.

 

Re: Dave Lee Travis sentence to be subject to appeal by CPS....Errr.....

Is that True? I read the are obliged to review it since 4 FOUR!! members of the public complained and by law the CPS must review it. Do you know all the facts of the case or Travis in person. How do you know he is a "vile man"? Are you one of the 4 who complained?

 

Throw enough mud and some will stick !

I do not know the truth, neither do you, but you seem to be convinced he is vile , unlike the juries in his trials !!

 

Looking at the relevant sentencing guideline for this type of assault it's difficult to see Judge Anthony Leonard QC's sentence being overturned. Both the culpability and harm factors would seem to be at the lowest level, and the judge was dealing with a single conviction. I don't think Dominic Grieve would even have referred the sentence to the Court Of Appeal, but the current Attorney General may be a more populist-type of politician who wishes to do so for effect. Even if the sentence is referred, I very much doubt that the Court of Appeal will alter it. The starting point is a high level community order. Where, as here, the judge decides the custody threshold has been passed, he is required to ask himself whether it is possible to suspend the sentence. Given Travis no longer has a powerful media job and faces financial/reputational ruin, it would be difficult to argue that the sentence could not possibly be suspended in these circumstances.

Of course, none of this detracts from him being a vile man.

 

Considering the offence he was convicted of I can't see how the sentence is unduly lenient.

 

He was found guilty. Beyond all reasonable doubt. I do know that. I know how he behaved in light of his conviction, and it was vile. You do know that he was found guilty of sexual assault, right?

 

From what I have read about the case, I really cannot see how this is in the public interest.

 

You do know he was cleared of 13 other charges , right ?

You seem to forget that his verdict was not proved by all reasonable doubt and that it was a majority verdict. You seem to assuming that I am stupid and I need to be told what to think ?
. You have an agenda and I am not sure what it is about here. The law has to be for EVERYONE , there are guidelines set out for these sentences and they have been applied to this case just like any other one with the same criteria. Why you think he should be treated any different to Joe Bloggs is a mystery ?

 

Re: Dave Lee Travis sentence to be subject to appeal by CPS....Errr.....

Sorry are you asking if I'm coordinating a bizarre effort to have him sent to prison?

I don't know who complained - i didn't, not sure I'd know who to complain to - or how many complained. Could've been four nosey basterds that ought to stop witch hunting the guy. Might have been four women who haven't received justice. Might be more than four?

News was broadcast on radio 4 that the CPS disagreed with the sentencing and had submitted an appeal.

Why do I think convicted sex offender Dave Lee Travis is a vile man? After his conviction he stood on the court steps and said the case should never have been brought. I have a tendency to feel that any unrepentant sex offender is vile. It takes a special type of human being to leave court saying 'I only got convicted of sexually assaulting one woman' and seeing that as a win. That man is Dave Lee Travis.

 

I read Camilla Long's article on it all in The Sunday Times - gives a victims/womans perspective on this - can see why this action has been taken.

 

Mate, there is only one way you can get convicted in a criminal court. 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. That is not the same as a unanimous or majority verdict. Don't confuse the two.

In the civil court a case must be proven 'on the balance of probabilities' - criminal court 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

If the judge decides to, he can accept the majority verdict in deciding whether reasonable doubt exists. Jury returned a majority verdict that reasonable doubt did not exist.

Thirteen other charges are irrelevant (or so it has been said repeatedly on here) - he only abused one woman. All he did was put his hands in contact with her breasts - through clothing.

Subsequently convicted, stood on the steps paid disregard to his victim, the court and his punishment by saying 'the case should never have been brought'.

I don't have an agenda - i just happen to disagree. It's not wrong to disagree. Some people are more liberal on some issues, some more conservative (small c) on others. I'll admit I'm fairly hard-line conservative on sentencing convicted sex offenders. This isn't characteristic of my out look on most things - but it is how I think and feel about sex offences.

 

Best and most objective response. Thank you. I disagree with the sentence he got - but your point is compelling.

 

Therefore some of that jury had reasonable doubt, whether the judge decided not to accept the ones that had doubt does not mean there was not any doubt ! DLT may very well be a convicted man, but he has got his sentence and nothing anyone says should take that away. It may well be that the sentencing rules are wrong , but those rules are the ones the judge has to follow, he cannot change the rules just because the offender was a celebrity. The sentence was what the offence was deemed to be worthy of !

 

In law he was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt. You're just going to have to accept that. The judge has ruled that any doubt that existed in the case was not a reasonable obstacle to conviction. No reasonable doubt.

I don't want Dave Lee Travis convicted more severely than anyone else - i think we should have custodial sentences as starting points for any offences of sexual abuse.

Don't confuse my opinion that he abused a position of power to commit his offences with a view that celebrities should face tougher sentences. Or that I think that the scandalous things that were happening inside the BBC were relevant either.

Put it into a different context. If he was a one time senior business man, who casually exploited/abused a junior member of staff, within a prominent organisation that we now know was rife with abuse - i would see that as relevant and aggravating in the context of this case. I would also represent that with all eyes on the series of sex abuse allegations that seem to be coming out, it is important that we don't become so transfixed with the celebrity/scandal that we depersonalise the victim or highlight the acceptability of such offending by giving trivial and token sentences that allow convicted offenders to gloat on the court steps, or send the wrong messages to others.

I respect your view - i don't agree with it - but you know what I think and I know why you object.

 

I find some of the comments re the sentence bizarre. This whole idea and some people's attitude e.g. BRF and Mario Kempes to the gravity of 'sex offences' bizarre. Firstly I am not condoning in ANY way the fact that the attitude shown towards invasion of 'personal space' and inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature, particularly towards women is acceptable. However, I do feel in these PC times the righteous indignation is way over the top.
In the 50s, 60s and 70s 'bottom pinching of women by men was prevalent in Italy Greece and Spain (and again I know the widespread practice does not make it acceptable) so are we saying the prisons should now be filled with thousands of men who carried out this heinous crime. After all pinching is likely to leave bruising whereas touching a womans breast is far less likely to cause any physical trauma.
Given what is going on in the world, e.g. Rape used as a weapon in Somalia DRC and the Middle East. Physical assaults, Domestic violence etc. are you seriously suggesting that we should lock people up because they 'touched up' a woman 15, 20, 25 odd years ago. Why do only celebrities appear to be targeted? I am still very concerned that given all but one case was dismissed it came down to one woman's word against a man's with no forensic evidence on something that is supposed to have happened several years ago. All the other cases - Rolf Harris, Saville, were proven because of the overwhelming number of unconnected people who came forward and gave similar accounts of what happened to them and times, dates and places were corroborated. In the case of Travis, there were as many character witnesses (many of them women and colleagues who worked closely with him, as there were against him. They were not coerced to come forward.
I find the whole situation disturbing as we are using current 'enlightened attitudes' and modern morality regarding women when judging what went on decades ago.
Not making light of it, but the back row of the cinema must have been the scene of many 'sexual offences' when lads 'tried it on with their date' (usually resulting in a 'slap' if they tried it on too far). If we use the conviction of Travis as a benchmark I suspect most of the lads of my generation and either side would be facing the same charges if their ex's came forward! What 'injury' has this woman suffered. Are we seriously saying her life has been ruined and she has been mentally scarred or traumatised for life by this? If she has then God help her if she had spent time somewhere like Rwanda or life under IS rule and had to suffer what those women have/had to suffer .
Given that Travis has had to sell his house to pay legal costs, is now probably unemployable and faces (along with his innocent wife and family) financial ruin, I think he has probably been punished enough without a custodial sentence to boot don't you?
The legal profession are certainly making lots of money out of this and I wonder sometimes if that is not a driving force between this campaign which is starting to resemble the 'McCarthy Witchhunt' of the 50s.

 

so on the charges he was found not guilty does that mean the accusers are vile lying scum and should be charged with perjury and wasting police time after all he was telling the truth so they must be liars

 

I agree entirely with this post ..I for one would be serving many years imprisonment if my clumsy fumblings in bus shelters or as you say the back seat of the pictures were taken into account... leave the poor man alone he has paid dearly for being in the wrong place at the wrong time... interesting that the woman violated reported having her T!TS felt for 15 second... classy use of words and interesting she was counting while being groped... it was a different time let it go...

 

A different time ? The woman in question worked on the Mrs Merton show in the mid 90's.

I'd encourage everyone denigrating the women involved in this etc to read Camilla Long's article in The Sunday Times. It's not about a fumble in a bus stop, i's about abuse of power and position over what the abuser views as 'lesser' individuals.