I think a lot of the problem was that Jay received very biased counsel from Richie. She clearly had a problem with defending him and called him a paedophile and then told him straight away to plead guilty. Jay had spent a terrifying night alone in a cell, was probably still trying to get his head round what had happened to him, and then he had a lawyer who has defended the Mitchells for years telling him to plead guilty and that if he did so he'd be home by the afternoon. She didn't tell him he'd end up on the SO register and I truly think he was surprised when that happened. He seemed to have no idea. Not even his duty solicitor told him. That's awful. He should have been fully aware of the consequences of pleading guilty, and the course of action that would have followed if he'd pleaded not guilty.
If Jay had pleaded not guilty, they'd have had to have questioned Linzi/Star who may well have attested that Jay had no idea of her age. He would have had time to collect his thoughts on the issue meaning he could have argued his case more eloquently, his solicitor would have had to have gathered evidence and found character witnesses who also would have attested that they too had believed Linzi was over sixteen. He would have had a very strong case. But in many ways, a lot of people's hands are tied now. He's on the Sex Offenders register which has implications for where he can go, where he can work and who he can live with.
It's a really horrible situation and I feel immensely for Jay but I do think this storyline is doing a good public service as it is very educational.
All very well BUT if Jay had pleaded not guilty to having sexual images on his phone he would have been guaranteed a worse sentence. He will have been told that by the duty solicitor. The simple fact that he had those explicit images of a child on his phone makes him guilty. No ifs / no buts. If he'd gone to trial and made a 14 year old take the witness box the judge would not have the mitigating factors used to reduce his sentence. The judge ACCEPTED that he didn't ask her age. That he engaged in this from a point of ignorance but it doesn't matter.
I feel very sorry for what happened to you and you're amazing for telling us what must have been an absolutely horrendous experience.
However this storyline is about the issue of the blurred lines between the age of consent in law. It's not a case of grooming and abuse but the age of consent is there for a reason.
I feel sorry for Jay as he didn't know what age Linzi was though. The storyline is actually a very good one.
I think the storyline is good, but it has for me highlighted a flaw in the law which has rather riled me up! I am sure no-one wants to see innocent people in convicted or in gaol, and that is how I see Jay - as innocent.
I think it also highlights how important proper legal representation is for everyone - even those accused of paedophilia. I know some people get annoyed at those that represent paedophiles but I have nothing but respect for them - they ensure that when a conviction is secured it is all above board and cannot be questioned.
All very well BUT if Jay had pleaded not guilty to having sexual images on his phone he would have been guaranteed a worse sentence. He will have been told that by the duty solicitor. The simple fact that he had those explicit images of a child on his phone makes him guilty. No ifs / no buts. If he'd gone to trial and made a 14 year old take the witness box the judge would not have the mitigating factors used to reduce his sentence. The judge ACCEPTED that he didn't ask her age. That he engaged in this from a point of ignorance but it doesn't matter.
Jay is an adult. Star a child.
No, I don't think that's true. If someone sent YOU explicit images of a minor on your phone, completely randomly, or possibly vindictively, then you wouldn't automatically end up on the SO register. There has to be intent to commit a crime. By pleading guilty, Jay essentially pleaded intent; it didn't matter what the mitigating circumstances were after that or what the judge believed. If it had gone to a full trial, and Jay had been able to prove that he had no intent to own explicit images of a minor, then the jury could find him not guilty on those grounds.
It would be a very scary world if all someone had to do was place images on your devices in order to see you convicted of a crime.
No, I don't think that's true. If someone sent YOU explicit images of a minor on your phone, completely randomly, or possibly vindictively, then you wouldn't automatically end up on the SO register. There has to be intent to commit a crime. By pleading guilty, Jay essentially pleaded intent; it didn't matter what the mitigating circumstances were after that or what the judge believed. If it had gone to a full trial, and Jay had been able to prove that he had no intent to own explicit images of a minor, then the jury could find him not guilty on those grounds.
It would be a very scary world if all someone had to do was place images on your devices in order to see you convicted of a crime.
This is how I imagined the law to be interpreted and applied - had Jay had proper legal advice he would not have pled guilty (if this was real - have to keep reminding myself it is just a story!)
This is how I imagined the law to be interpreted and applied - had Jay had proper legal advice he would not have pled guilty (if this was real - have to keep reminding myself it is just a story!)
Well exactly.
He may be able to use the poor legal advice as justification for overturning his conviction. Perhaps not.
If the police didn't process every case of an adult having sexual relations with a child all genuine and real peados would be using the 'I didn't know her age' as their defence.
That is why its automatic to be placed on the sex offenders register if an adult has any sort of indecent images of children or has committed any sex act with anyone under the age of 16. Its law that isn't up for debate.
Like I said, its good EE have done this as people really have no idea of the laws.
Not quite correct. If the child is over 13, and the adult can prove that they reasonably believed the child was over 16, then there is a defence. This can be hard to prove though, and 'she told me she was old enough' is often not enough. Under 13 and there is no defence like you say.
Either way, it would never be a quick interview and NFA. Maybe many years ago, but now there would be an arrest, evidence seized (mobiles can actually take weeks to process properly), video interview of the child, multi agency working with social services etc. It would be a lengthy investigation process, not just involving the police, while the suspect is on bail.
I realise this is a discussion about a TV soap but thought it was worth clarification
I am wondering why Rebecca thinks Jay and Linzi had sex. I might have missed a bit, but as far as I can see, Linzi never said they had sex so why did Rebecca say that in the pub? Also, was it Rebecca that called Linzi's slutty looking mother to tell her that they had been sleeping together?
This is what I get for watching Easties while I am half asleep.
Also, what kind of pics did Linzi send? Ritchie said they were way worse than page 3, so we are obviously talking about more than just topless pictures.
Jay pleaded guilty to a judge so the judge had no option but to place him on the sex offenders register. Its automatic for these cases.
Maybe the next part of the story will be Jay trying to appeal it but right now everything regarding how Jay was placed on the sex offenders register is realistic and would happen in real life. He pleaded guilty to a sex crime. I'm not sure how to spell it out any clearer?
They are also missing the point that IF Jay had not gone to school that day he would have ended up with Linzi in a hotel room!
Also, what kind of pics did Linzi send? Ritchie said they were way worse than page 3, so we are obviously talking about more than just topless pictures.
They had to put that in the script to try and make it more serious than what it actually was, but I think if this was real life, then someone like Linzi is hardly going to post anything more serious than page 3....
I think though for anyone to call it "child pornography" is stretching a bit....
Jay pleaded guilty..... so in the eyes of the law he wasn't innocent..
Its like banging your head against a brick wall in this topic.
In Eastenders reality, Jay is in fact innocent, whatever the law says. Just as Mick is innocent, despite his conviction for kerb crawling.
The point is that in Jay's case, an innocent man is no longer viewed as innocent in law due to bad legal advice, a poorly interpreted law and a flawed legal system.
It's like banging your head against a brick wall on this topic
Jay pleaded guilty..... so in the eyes of the law he wasn't innocent..
Its like banging your head against a brick wall in this topic.
I feel the same. This storyline could have been a lot more hardhitting than how they did it, because at the end of the day, all we have is a young bloke mistakenly going out with a girl he thought was older than she was, and when he found out she was still at school, he ended it, and that is the long and the short of it. So to me, it wasn't much of a storyline in the first place.
And he had to plead guilty as he was too naive to do anything else. Plus he didn't want to be in remand. I'm sure had he had good advice, he wouldn't have done.
In Eastenders reality, Jay is in fact innocent, whatever the law says. Just as Mick is innocent, despite his conviction for kerb crawling.
The point is that in Jay's case, an innocent man is no longer viewed as innocent in law due to bad legal advice, a poorly interpreted law and a flawed legal system.
It's like banging your head against a brick wall on this topic
Jay might be innocent but he told the judge he wasn't. Therefore the judge had to sentence him...
Why can't you grasp this? You keep talking about an innocent man being convicted but Jay pleaded guilty.
Jay might be innocent but he told the judge he wasn't. Therefore the judge had to sentence him...
Why can't you grasp this? You keep talking about an innocent man being convicted but Jay pleaded guilty.
Is it really too difficult to follow?
Why can't you grasp this? My point is exactly that he pleaded guilty even though he was innocent because he felt he had no choice. His guilty plea doesn't mean he not in actuality innocent.
An innocent man is now viewed as guilty in the eyes of the law - how is that helping anyone? Jay has literally done nothing wrong - in fact he did the right thing - he broke off the relationship and deleted the images as soon as he found out Star was underage.
Why can't you grasp this? My point is exactly that he pleaded guilty even though he was innocent because he felt he had no choice. His guilty plea doesn't mean he not in actuality innocent.
An innocent man is now viewed as guilty in the eyes of the law - how is that helping anyone? Jay has literally done nothing wrong - in fact he did the right thing - he broke off the relationship and deleted the images as soon as he found out Star was underage.
Is it really too difficult to follow?
Now you are back tracking because I've highlighted you were wrong about what the judge would do and what the storylines intentions are. The story is about Jay being caught having indecent images on his phone and the consequences of that.
I would say its helping a lot of people to actually understand this sort of thing will get you in serious trouble as judging from half of the replies to this topic alone many people were ignorant to the laws.
Now you are backing tracking because I've highlighted you were wrong about what the judge would do and what the storylines intentions are. The story is about Jay being caught having indecent images on his phone and the consequences of that.
I would say its helping a lot of people to actually understand this sort of thing will get you in serious trouble as judging from half of the replies to this topic alone many people were ignorant to the laws.
What exactly am i back tracking on? Where have you highlighted i was "wrong"?
What exactly am i back tracking on? Where have you highlighted i was "wrong"?
You've said in several posts that EE have made a mockery of real victims by convicting an innocent man when Jay admitted having the images on his phone and pleaded guilty to the crime. That is what this story is about, its not about abuse victims, its about an innocent man falling fowl of the law and being punished as a result. He admitted to a judge he was in procession of indecent images, therefore being places on the sex offenders register is mandatory. The storyline is the repercussions of that.
You've said in several posts that EE have made a mockery of real victims by convicting an innocent man when Jay admitted having the images on his phone and pleaded guilty to the crime. That is what this story is about, its not about abuse victims, its about an innocent man falling fowl of the law and being punished as a result. He admitted to a judge he was in procession of indecent images, therefore being places on the sex offenders register is mandatory. The storyline is the repercussions of that.
It does make a mockery of real abuse survivors and the convictions for their abusers if people that are in actuality innocent are having to plead guilty to ensure a shorter gaol term. That is what this storyline has to do with abuse survivors. I have not back tracked on that once.
Survivors want to see guilty people convicted or in gaol, the ones that actually have hurt children. Convicting innocent people helps keep no-one safe. Again, this is why this storyline relates to survivors.
I think had Jay either taken the images himself or coerced Star into taking them, or forwarded them on to others, he could be deemed guilty, but as Star just sent them to him it seems wrong to charge him with possession - he had no control over his receipt of the images. He deleted them as soon as he realised Star was under age.
I agree this story is nothing to do with victims of abuse or survivors of rape. Why this is now being added in I don't know? Its a totally separate issue. The story is about a 21 year old man making a mistake and now paying the price for it. You can't blame EastEnders for doing a storyline which shows how complex the laws on indecency are.
I agree this story is nothing to do with victims of abuse or survivors of rape. Why this is now being added in I don't know? Its a totally separate issue. The story is about a 21 year old man making a mistake and now paying the price for it. You can't blame EastEnders for doing a storyline which shows how complex the laws on indecency are.
Comments
All very well BUT if Jay had pleaded not guilty to having sexual images on his phone he would have been guaranteed a worse sentence. He will have been told that by the duty solicitor. The simple fact that he had those explicit images of a child on his phone makes him guilty. No ifs / no buts. If he'd gone to trial and made a 14 year old take the witness box the judge would not have the mitigating factors used to reduce his sentence. The judge ACCEPTED that he didn't ask her age. That he engaged in this from a point of ignorance but it doesn't matter.
Jay is an adult. Star a child.
I think the storyline is good, but it has for me highlighted a flaw in the law which has rather riled me up! I am sure no-one wants to see innocent people in convicted or in gaol, and that is how I see Jay - as innocent.
I think it also highlights how important proper legal representation is for everyone - even those accused of paedophilia. I know some people get annoyed at those that represent paedophiles but I have nothing but respect for them - they ensure that when a conviction is secured it is all above board and cannot be questioned.
Can he do that legally, if he has pled gulity?
Actually I'm not really sure.
Edit 100% agree with Aurora's post.
No, I don't think that's true. If someone sent YOU explicit images of a minor on your phone, completely randomly, or possibly vindictively, then you wouldn't automatically end up on the SO register. There has to be intent to commit a crime. By pleading guilty, Jay essentially pleaded intent; it didn't matter what the mitigating circumstances were after that or what the judge believed. If it had gone to a full trial, and Jay had been able to prove that he had no intent to own explicit images of a minor, then the jury could find him not guilty on those grounds.
It would be a very scary world if all someone had to do was place images on your devices in order to see you convicted of a crime.
This is how I imagined the law to be interpreted and applied - had Jay had proper legal advice he would not have pled guilty (if this was real - have to keep reminding myself it is just a story!)
Well exactly.
He may be able to use the poor legal advice as justification for overturning his conviction. Perhaps not.
Not quite correct. If the child is over 13, and the adult can prove that they reasonably believed the child was over 16, then there is a defence. This can be hard to prove though, and 'she told me she was old enough' is often not enough. Under 13 and there is no defence like you say.
Either way, it would never be a quick interview and NFA. Maybe many years ago, but now there would be an arrest, evidence seized (mobiles can actually take weeks to process properly), video interview of the child, multi agency working with social services etc. It would be a lengthy investigation process, not just involving the police, while the suspect is on bail.
I realise this is a discussion about a TV soap but thought it was worth clarification
This is what I get for watching Easties while I am half asleep.
They are also missing the point that IF Jay had not gone to school that day he would have ended up with Linzi in a hotel room!
Jay pleaded guilty..... so in the eyes of the law he wasn't innocent..
Its like banging your head against a brick wall in this topic.
I think though for anyone to call it "child pornography" is stretching a bit....
In Eastenders reality, Jay is in fact innocent, whatever the law says. Just as Mick is innocent, despite his conviction for kerb crawling.
The point is that in Jay's case, an innocent man is no longer viewed as innocent in law due to bad legal advice, a poorly interpreted law and a flawed legal system.
It's like banging your head against a brick wall on this topic
I feel the same. This storyline could have been a lot more hardhitting than how they did it, because at the end of the day, all we have is a young bloke mistakenly going out with a girl he thought was older than she was, and when he found out she was still at school, he ended it, and that is the long and the short of it. So to me, it wasn't much of a storyline in the first place.
And he had to plead guilty as he was too naive to do anything else. Plus he didn't want to be in remand. I'm sure had he had good advice, he wouldn't have done.
Jay might be innocent but he told the judge he wasn't. Therefore the judge had to sentence him...
Why can't you grasp this? You keep talking about an innocent man being convicted but Jay pleaded guilty.
Is it really too difficult to follow?
Why can't you grasp this? My point is exactly that he pleaded guilty even though he was innocent because he felt he had no choice. His guilty plea doesn't mean he not in actuality innocent.
An innocent man is now viewed as guilty in the eyes of the law - how is that helping anyone? Jay has literally done nothing wrong - in fact he did the right thing - he broke off the relationship and deleted the images as soon as he found out Star was underage.
Is it really too difficult to follow?
Now you are back tracking because I've highlighted you were wrong about what the judge would do and what the storylines intentions are. The story is about Jay being caught having indecent images on his phone and the consequences of that.
I would say its helping a lot of people to actually understand this sort of thing will get you in serious trouble as judging from half of the replies to this topic alone many people were ignorant to the laws.
What exactly am i back tracking on? Where have you highlighted i was "wrong"?
You've said in several posts that EE have made a mockery of real victims by convicting an innocent man when Jay admitted having the images on his phone and pleaded guilty to the crime. That is what this story is about, its not about abuse victims, its about an innocent man falling fowl of the law and being punished as a result. He admitted to a judge he was in procession of indecent images, therefore being places on the sex offenders register is mandatory. The storyline is the repercussions of that.
It does make a mockery of real abuse survivors and the convictions for their abusers if people that are in actuality innocent are having to plead guilty to ensure a shorter gaol term. That is what this storyline has to do with abuse survivors. I have not back tracked on that once.
Survivors want to see guilty people convicted or in gaol, the ones that actually have hurt children. Convicting innocent people helps keep no-one safe. Again, this is why this storyline relates to survivors.
I think had Jay either taken the images himself or coerced Star into taking them, or forwarded them on to others, he could be deemed guilty, but as Star just sent them to him it seems wrong to charge him with possession - he had no control over his receipt of the images. He deleted them as soon as he realised Star was under age.
The word is foul not fowl by the way.
I agree this story is nothing to do with victims of abuse or survivors of rape. Why this is now being added in I don't know? Its a totally separate issue. The story is about a 21 year old man making a mistake and now paying the price for it. You can't blame EastEnders for doing a storyline which shows how complex the laws on indecency are.
why shouldnt it be