Well it was the police who said they went to his house and found unsecured weapons.
Whether he's harassed or not has nothing to do with this case. Unless he was carrying it for that reason at which point it becomes a more serious offence.
So you want us to let people off crimes because they're old? That's all this boils down to and frankly it's patronising. We don't allow children to be charged below a certain age because they're considered incapable of understanding the weight of their actions. Should we do this to the elderly too? Wouldn't this mean the removal of their independence and responsibility? I mean, if they can't be held criminally responsible then surely they shouldn't be allowed to write wills etc...
That's one reason - especially as he had owned the gun for many decades, and through a time when the same "offence" would have barely raised a comment from the police. But the main reason is one of sheer commonsense. Did you see the case linked to earlier where a 21 year old in Scotland, who don't have "strict liability" laws on the matter, received just a fine for the same offence?
To hamstring all the normal rules of justice, and all the varying circumstances that can occur with this crime, with strict liability legislation, is to completely negate any semblance of reason, commonsense and fair play. In other words, stupid beyond belief.
Sending an 88 year old to prison, without further reports first, smacks of indifference, ignorance or callousness.
If the reports come back that he is fine to go to prison then fair enough.
(Although I do believe the statutory penalties for this offence also need review)
There will almost always be reports first.
I would go so far as to say that if there hasn't been one, it would be very unusual, especially given his age, part of the pre sentencing report's intent is to highlight and vulnerabilities and specific needs of the person (and for example if by sending them to jail rather than another option it would put additional/undue hardship on a third party).
Is there any Summing Up or other official publication of this case?
They should say something like "I have taken into account...etc"
I can't see anything via Google
If it was done in a crown court (it would have to be, magistrates can only deal with cases with a penalty of up to 6 months inside), then it should have an entry on a ministry of justice site at some point, I think they try and get them up within a few weeks normally (for high profile cases faster).
I think this is the page, but I can't currently find anything listed for this case, I'll try again later when I have more time.
Well it was the police who said they went to his house and found unsecured weapons.
Whether he's harassed or not has nothing to do with this case. Unless he was carrying it for that reason at which point it becomes a more serious offence.
So you want us to let people off crimes because they're old? That's all this boils down to and frankly it's patronising. We don't allow children to be charged below a certain age because they're considered incapable of understanding the weight of their actions. Should we do this to the elderly too? Wouldn't this mean the removal of their independence and responsibility? I mean, if they can't be held criminally responsible then surely they shouldn't be allowed to write wills etc...
NOBODY here is suggesting that. Are you Lord Summerisle in disguise?.
What we are advocating is a sensible punishment. In this case, given his age, mitigating factors and family factors, a suspended sentence and removal of gun ownership would have been the eminently sensible punishment.
The quality of justice must be tempered with mercy. A great man once said.
Update, The old boy has been released from prison. After being re sentenced to two years suspended for 18 months.
Grandfather Roy Delph had his prison sentence cancelled after it emerged barristers had blundered by incorrectly classifying the 124-year-old weapon as more dangerous than it was - leading to the wrong sentencing guidelines being followed.
Lawrence Bruce, the barrister for Mr Delph, has already said he mistakenly thought that the type of weapon placed the case in the category of the mandatory minimum prison sentence imposed by Parliament, but later realised he was wrong.
He said at Tuesday’s hearing at Norwich Crown Court: “I take primary responsibility for that error - an error to which I fell at a relatively early stage in proceedings.”
It led to Judge Nicholas Coleman re-sentencing Mr Delph to two years in jail, suspended for 18 months. Mr Delph, of Salters Lode, near Downham Market, had previously received of two year prison sentence, of which he had served 18 days.
Update, The old boy has been released from prison. After being re sentenced to two years suspended for 18 months.
Grandfather Roy Delph had his prison sentence cancelled after it emerged barristers had blundered by incorrectly classifying the 124-year-old weapon as more dangerous than it was - leading to the wrong sentencing guidelines being followed.
Lawrence Bruce, the barrister for Mr Delph, has already said he mistakenly thought that the type of weapon placed the case in the category of the mandatory minimum prison sentence imposed by Parliament, but later realised he was wrong.
He said at Tuesday’s hearing at Norwich Crown Court: “I take primary responsibility for that error - an error to which I fell at a relatively early stage in proceedings.”
It led to Judge Nicholas Coleman re-sentencing Mr Delph to two years in jail, suspended for 18 months. Mr Delph, of Salters Lode, near Downham Market, had previously received of two year prison sentence, of which he had served 18 days.
The article states he was being tormented by thugs and that is why he was carrying the gun.
Sorry but he knew that was loaded and deserved the sentence. He could have easily have shot at an innocent person, or even missed and hit a child. What example does that set to any other so called confused elderly person, who wants to ride around with a loaded weapon.
For the record the thugs tormenting him, deserved prison as well.
Comments
That's one reason - especially as he had owned the gun for many decades, and through a time when the same "offence" would have barely raised a comment from the police. But the main reason is one of sheer commonsense. Did you see the case linked to earlier where a 21 year old in Scotland, who don't have "strict liability" laws on the matter, received just a fine for the same offence?
To hamstring all the normal rules of justice, and all the varying circumstances that can occur with this crime, with strict liability legislation, is to completely negate any semblance of reason, commonsense and fair play. In other words, stupid beyond belief.
If you can't see that, then I give up.
There will almost always be reports first.
I would go so far as to say that if there hasn't been one, it would be very unusual, especially given his age, part of the pre sentencing report's intent is to highlight and vulnerabilities and specific needs of the person (and for example if by sending them to jail rather than another option it would put additional/undue hardship on a third party).
They should say something like "I have taken into account...etc"
I can't see anything via Google
If it was done in a crown court (it would have to be, magistrates can only deal with cases with a penalty of up to 6 months inside), then it should have an entry on a ministry of justice site at some point, I think they try and get them up within a few weeks normally (for high profile cases faster).
I think this is the page, but I can't currently find anything listed for this case, I'll try again later when I have more time.
I know. The law is the law, only following orders....
NOBODY here is suggesting that. Are you Lord Summerisle in disguise?.
What we are advocating is a sensible punishment. In this case, given his age, mitigating factors and family factors, a suspended sentence and removal of gun ownership would have been the eminently sensible punishment.
The quality of justice must be tempered with mercy. A great man once said.
Grandfather Roy Delph had his prison sentence cancelled after it emerged barristers had blundered by incorrectly classifying the 124-year-old weapon as more dangerous than it was - leading to the wrong sentencing guidelines being followed.
Lawrence Bruce, the barrister for Mr Delph, has already said he mistakenly thought that the type of weapon placed the case in the category of the mandatory minimum prison sentence imposed by Parliament, but later realised he was wrong.
He said at Tuesday’s hearing at Norwich Crown Court: “I take primary responsibility for that error - an error to which I fell at a relatively early stage in proceedings.”
It led to Judge Nicholas Coleman re-sentencing Mr Delph to two years in jail, suspended for 18 months. Mr Delph, of Salters Lode, near Downham Market, had previously received of two year prison sentence, of which he had served 18 days.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cps_admits_norfolk_grandfather_gun_case_mistake_should_have_been_spotted_1_4200962
Odd choice of phrase
Glad he's out, I had feared he'd spend the rest of his life in prison.
I can believe they made a stupid mistake. It's all too common, unfortunately.
The old boy should never ever have gone to prison.
So people should be allowed to carry loaded guns around?
Quote me the bit where I said that and try getting your facts correct before posting.
Glad he is out and hope it wasn't too arduous.
Sorry but he knew that was loaded and deserved the sentence. He could have easily have shot at an innocent person, or even missed and hit a child. What example does that set to any other so called confused elderly person, who wants to ride around with a loaded weapon.
For the record the thugs tormenting him, deserved prison as well.
What facts, you were asked for opinion. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
If this man had been a black 21 year old carrying a LOADED GUN would you want him to escape prison?
Edit,
I see you're 'inactive' at the mo so reply if and when you return pls.
Let me remind you what you asked:-
I will repeat - where in this thread have I said they should?
Before going any further, what's race got to do with it?
Are you suggesting that black people should be treated differently to white people or other ethnic groups, for the same crime?