And another one

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/0...course-justice/

A Labour whip and ally of Jeremy Corbyn has been charged with perverting the course of justice after allegations that she tried to give away speeding points a month after her election.

Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP for Peterborough, appeared at Westminster magistrates court two weeks ago alongside her brother, Festus.

The former solicitor kept news of her arrest and charge secret while serving as a Labour whip. She is due back in court next month.

Solicitors and MP's seem to have issues with speeding tickets, this one is both !!!

So she is appealing the conviction but not the sentence and the AG is now looking at the sentence but not the conviction.

You're quite right, I've removed that quote. It hasn't helped my queasy stomach much, though.

It definitely isn't reading for someone without a strong stomach.

I would be very happy for the AG to appeal the sentence as I think its risible, I feared they would not.

It's out of kilter with 90% of the cases in the 'happy to go to jail' thread, looks very much like some form of preferential treatment.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 10:20

Hi,

She actually had two bites at the cherry, why she didn't admit guilt after the first trail? that should surely have an effect on the sentence? She fought to the very end and then when found guilty claimed everything under the sun, good role model, suffering from MS (I wonder who signed that off), I am actually surprised that she didn't have a sick dog.

And what's more, the judge referenced her parliamentary salary as being her only form of income, no S*** Sherlock, what happens to totters who lose their licenses (and jobs) do the magistrates take into account single income then? Or in any custodial sentence for that matter? It seems like extremely favourable treatment to me.

A bit like the Black youth with the Zombie knife, fortunately sense prevailed in that case. I have very little faith it will here.

Dwain

Judge reckoned Festus was worth 12months for each case.
Made it 10months with plea reductions and ran all three concurrently.

Judge makes a specific difference for her in that he accepted that she didn't instigate and that her deception only went on for a short time.
I can understand the didn't instigate bit can make a difference but what difference does the duration make in this sort of case ?

Not instigating it was only worth 25% off to Vicky Pryce, she got 9 months to Chris Huhne's 12 months (before discount) which seems about right to me.

I read in one newspaper costs estimated at £500,000.
£500,000 for two straightforward trials?

Depends whose costs - just hers, both defendants, or the whole shebang? I can see costs hitting that amount on a private paying basis for a lengthy (2 week plus) jury trial.

That's the sort of calculation I am doing.
IF accepted that she did not instigate, something like a 25% reduction
Perhaps more if accepted that she not only didn't instigate but had no knowledge of it to start with.
But then came a point in time when the authorities pulled her in for questioning.
To me that is the point where it beggars belief that she did not do more checks and if in doubt, put her hands up and say that the name given was obviously wrong, dunno how but nuffink to do with her.
That may have seen her in court but could also have seen her acquitted or even not charged for PCOJ due to doubt that it was a deliberate act.
Especially reading that summing up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambr...eshire-47071120

Fiona Onasanya: Peterborough MP's jail term to be reviewed

Unfortunately that just means they're going to have a look and decide whether to appeal the sentence.

I suspect they'll go for it though, as The Rookie says it's out of kilter with most of the cases we see and I would have expected at the very least 6 to 9 months, if not 12. Most people who plead guilty seem to get longer sentences and that's where they cough up straight away, Ms Onasanya had to go through two trials and still shows no indication of remorse or contrition.

Trouble here is that she has spun a tale that has been accepted.
A tale of ineptitude, sloppy attitude to paperwork and legal duties, little if any organisational skills and assumptions.
If that is believed, there is no deliberate attempt towards PCOJ and not guilty would be the only possible verdict.
The judge took the view that at a point in time it became unbelievable that she could not be aware of errors but continued to hold to the story.
That does make it deliberate and PCOJ from that point.
And where the Judge's view on duration plays a major role in length of sentence.
And a role I still do not understand?

It will almost certainly have been the jury that took that view - the judge can only sentence consistently with the jury’s verdict.


What do you not understand?

AFAIK, the jury only decides on guilty or not guilty ?
It is the judge who decides on specific circumstances which impact sentencing.
If I am mistaken, please could someone explain.


Duration?
Why should this make any impact on sentence length in this instance?
I can understand an impact if for sake of argument, someone falsely filled in the S172, sent it off, had a change of heart and confessed before any investigation.
Would be PCOJ (as I understand it) but little impact and corrected in short time so would hope for a minimal sentence.
But in this case, I cannot see any difference duration makes?
Whether she decided to lie from the start or later (as the judge seemed to believe), what difference?
She still lied, still tried to bluff it out, still blamed all but herself.
In that respect I see no difference between 6 months duration of lies or 2 months.

I have no idea how the prosecution case was presented. It may have been presented on the basis that the PCOJ only began at the interview. The jury is there to decide the facts, not just guilt. The judge can only sentence based on the facts found by the jury. So, if his view is that the intention was formed at a certain stage that must have been a finding of fact by the jury implicit in their guilty verdict. I wouldn’t be surprised, therefore, if that was the basis the prosecution was put. Otherwise, how would the judge know that was the jury’s finding?

The judge will take everything into account when sentencing, including the findings of the jury (implicit from their guilty verdict) and anything admitted put forward by the prosecution or defence.

Well that's interesting because:

I find your evidence that you failed to check properly what you had been doing on 24 July and that you passed the NIP to your mother’s home to be credible, supported as it is by your brother’s evidence that he was passed the NIP by your mother. What matters is that I am not sure that you passed it to your brother (directly or indirectly) with the intention of perverting the course of public justice. Similarly, Mr Onasanya, I find it credible that you were passed the NIP for 24 July 2017 by your mother.
...
I am not sure that you sent the letter of 20 September 2017 with the intention of perverting the course of justice. You may have done; but I am not sure of it and must therefore give you the benefit of the doubt for the purpose of sentencing.

If the jury found her guilty of PCOJ on all counts, can the judge still give her the benefit of the doubt?

Only if it doesn’t conflict with the jury’s verdict. I don’t know over what period the charge(s) related to.

Well if the charge doesn't cover that period, the judge had no choice either. If she hasn't been convicted of sending the letter on 20 September 2017 with intent to PCOJ, the judge can hardly sentence her on the basis that she had, that would be sentencing her on the basis of a crime she hadn't been charged with, let alone convicted. I guess the thing I find bizarre is that the judge made factual findings in his sentencing remarks which I would expect in a civil trial, but not in a criminal case where findings of fact are for the jury.

That was my point as raised earlier, the sentencing remarks suggest the Judge made a finding (or findings) of fact independent of the Jury.

That in itself, if true, would give good grounds for an appeal of the sentence. Meanwhile we're paying a convicted criminal (of a crime of 'moral turpitude' as the Merkins so quaintly, and aptly, put it) to be in parliament while she drags it out as long as possible (Pension, salary and she'll probably get to claim most the income tax paid back as well!).