Dave Lee Travis sentence to be subject to appeal by CPS

No. Dave Lee Travis was found 'not guilty' - his defence has been that he has touched women but never in a belief that they didn't consent. The argument is that he knew they didn't consent - where reasonable doubt existed between the two arguments (I. E. They couldn't find beyond reasonable doubt that he knew there was a lack of consent) they can't convict. It's a fine line and a notoriously difficult charge to successfully prosecute.

This being said - they did - and he has been convicted.

At no stage has there been evidence that victims have fabricated evidence or made false report.

 

He has been convicted (although some jurors felt there was doubt so it wasn't clear cut) but yes convicted. He has also been sentenced with what the judge felt was an appropriate sentence (was he trivialising it with such a sentence?). Not everyone can be locked up, we'd run out of space in the prisons, so there does need to be some 'grading' of offences. Some criminals who many would think commit crimes more suitable to a custodial sentence don't get sent down. So it does have a feel of a 'witch hunt' to it, make an example of him. His life has been ruined already, he has been and will continue to be, punished by society (the way he is thought of, the lack of opportunity to do anything with his life now). Not to mention the cost of running this further appeal.

Maybe thinking like that makes me morally repugnant in your eyes, it certainly seems that way, but there you go, that's my thoughts on it.

 

Glad we cleared that one up.

 

It's just a difference of opinion. That's all.

 

I have prosecuted and defended many sex offenders over 20 years, from rapists to those accused of the most minor of indecent, now sexual, assaults. The Travis facts, touching breasts over clothing on one occasion, fall squarely into the latter bracket and do not, on the guidelines, merit an immediate custodial sentence.
Given the historic nature of the offence and the fact he has no relevant previous convictions I am astonished that the suspended sentence has been AG referenced and do not expect it to be increased. I do not believe the sentence would have been referred in the case of a non-celebrity.
Everyone should be equal before the law and celebrity should afford no protection but nor should it attract more condign punishment either.
Retrospective sticking the boot in does not make good the laxity of times past and I am uncomfortable with the Madame Defarge mob mentality that currently prevails.

 

TBH that's something that's always bothered/puzzled me, how can anybody defend a sex offender when its clear that they are guilty?

 

Counsel take instructions from the client and act upon them. If an accused admits the offence then we can only advise that they plead guilty and would have to withdraw should they insist on contesting the matter at trial.
On many occasions clients provide instructions that are extremely unlikely but so long as they maintain their innocence counsel must do their best with what they are told. This does not prevent the provision of very robust advice as to the merits of a particular defence and the likely outcome at trial.
This often has the desired effect!
Sex cases are, given the stigma attached, often the hardest for defendants to admit and many would rather maintain their innocence following conviction by a jury than admit what they have done.
It should not be lost in all this that malicious complaints of a sexual nature are not uncommon and cause huge distress for those so accused.

 

Sounds intense stuff. You got any thoughts on the Ched Evans situation ?

 

so hes proven innocent but is still a liar and they've been proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt to be lying but are still telling the truth, so if he gets a guilty and is sent down and if he gets an innocent hes still guilty and the people that are proven liars walk out scot free and sell their stories to a news paper. and it must be a false report he got a not guilty, that means he didn't do what they accused him of so hes innocent that's why the judge said not guilty he didn't do it, I know I keep repeating the same thing but he was innocent in as much as he didn't do it, like without a stain on his character until people like you start saying the court/jury are wrong, and as to the rest he touched a woman up 20 years ago so she NOW decides to come forward £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

 

Everyone should be equal before the law. However if someone has abused a position of trust or authority or seniority in order to perpetrate their offence their job becomes relevant (job not celebrity). It becomes highly relevant in the cases of Saville, Glitter and Harris because their celebrity became a mechanism of their reputation and supported their offending patterns.

The 'laxity of times past' is a matter of huge public interest - and historical sex offences (or laxity of times past, as you appear to minimise these crimes) do need to be addressed. There are victims who are entitled to justice.

Some of the responses would suggest that I am literally advocating that Dave Lee Travis should be hung by the neck. Which is quite false. I have argued against the death penalty many times on this board. I'm of the opinion - and I understand this is out of step with opinion on this forum, and sentencing guidelines - that sexual offences should be met with custodial sentences. There may be exceptional circumstances - there always are - but in this case you have a convicted offender who still thinks he has done nothing wrong and has absolutely no remorse.

 

Thanks for this post the voice of common sence and reasoning is like a breath of fresh air ..

 

You must live in a very black and white world. You clearly don't understand how the criminal justice system works. A not guilty finding is a million miles away from showing that a complainant victim has lied.

 

I always understood that the law is black or white it cant be grey or we'd get a "not proven " ( like the jocks) or admonished as in Q,R' s. this whole historical thing gets right on my t1ts excuse the pun, why leave something 20/30/40, years before you decide to come forward if it didn't bother you 10 years ago why now after an additional 30 years. you watch the civil claims go in......................... Orrinocco womble touched my ar5e in 77 can I have some money

 

Not being able to satisfy the high burden of proof required for a conviction is entirely different to the person accusing being a liar. That's obvious.

Do you think we should operate a system whereby if the accused is found not guilty the victim should be banged up for perjury? You're absolutely mental if so.

 

Hang on a sec, you disliked my post where I said I didn't disagree with the sentence, but that didn't mean that what he did was insignificant or not morally or legally wrong. I can't see where RedYarmy's post differs from this. I still think there's a worrying undercurrent from some that they don't think what he did was particularly wrong

 

Has the name of the victim been released - I don't think it has .... maybe someone...

.... should remove the post naming her.
I know it's an easy google BUT ....

 

in certain cases yes ! because in some cases its just blatent lies so it muddies the water for genuine cases, and thanks for the insult but next time why not just repeat everything I say 'cos that's just as childish

 

If they can be proven to have lied then yes, they should be prosecuted for perjury. But they shouldn't be prosecuted just because the person they accused is found not guilty.

 

Double negatives always F**k me up speak in clear english please..to save confusion

 

Re: Has the name of the victim been released - I don't think it has .... maybe someon

Well if you're that concerned that I might have made a mistake by naming her either because it wasn't her (it was) or she didn't want people to know it was her, just have a listen to this podcast which was publicly released two years ago - the really interesting bit is between 39.30 and 40.30 - would you still say she didn't want anyone to know it was her?

http://podbay.fm/show/453503238/e/1344374100?autostart=1