Labour MP accused of PCOJ, Threads merged Options

[kommando]

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 !!!

[Advertisement]

[DancingDad]

The Judge's summing up would be interesting.
My understanding is that any facts a jury finds on are secret. That no one gets to know.
Including the judge
They decide on "facts" but then use them to decide on verdict.
However the summing up should detail what the questions are, summarise defence and prosecution stances and relevant points of law.
It may be that no evidence was offered or that the question of deliberate act from NIP was open and that the summing up made this clear.
If jury only had a choice of PCOJ from interview but not NIP then that would make sense of sentencing remarks.

[cp8759]

It may be that no evidence was offered or that the question of deliberate act from NIP was open and that the summing up made this clear.
If jury only had a choice of PCOJ from interview but not NIP then that would make sense of sentencing remarks.

It still doesn't make sense to me though. Either the prosecution's case was that the letter of 20 September 2017 was sent with a criminal intent, or it wasn't (this was a Crown Court trial so I assume the allegations were adequately particularised). If this wasn't the prosecution's case, there was nothing on which to give the benefit of the doubt, and the letter of 20 September 2017 would have been irrelevant for the purposes of sentencing. If on the other hand the prosecution's case was that the letter of 20 September 2017 was sent with criminal intent and on that charge she was convicted, I don't see how the judge can give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

[notmeatloaf]

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!).

The rules of remaining an MP are very clear, and she is entitled to remain one currently.

It is evidently right that her constituents should have the power as to whether to remove her or not. It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.

[The Rookie]

Full sentencing remarks as recorded
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads...nasanyadocx.pdf
"I do not accept and am not constrained by the verdict to accept all of the Prosecution’s case and allegations about your conduct. Having presided over your trial, and having reviewed the evidence again in preparation for today, I have reached my own conclusions about your involvement in the second of these three offences, which I believe to be consistent with the evidence
as a whole and the verdict of the jury. "
" I am not sure that you sent the letter of 20 September 2017 with the intention of perverting the course of justice"
(My bolds for emphasis - there is no mention of the Jury)

The Judge then concludes that the Jury convicted based on the last of the three communications, without, as far as I can see any evidence upon which to base that conclusion about the Juries verdict.
"It was a disastrous decision; but it was a decision which, on the evidence and the verdict of the jury, you took. "

[DancingDad]

.........It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.

Seems obvious to me that she is a criminal and has taken deceit, lies and misdirection to a new level even for MPs so should not remain one.
It is also within the remit of the courts and judges to remove MPs within current rules.
Just sentence any MP to 12 months or more...job done.

[cp8759]

.........It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.

Seems obvious to me that she is a criminal and has taken deceit, lies and misdirection to a new level even for MPs so should not remain one.
It is also within the remit of the courts and judges to remove MPs within current rules.
Just sentence any MP to 12 months or more...job done.

To be fair as I understand it, that is not a relevant sentencing consideration.

[DancingDad]

.........It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.

Seems obvious to me that she is a criminal and has taken deceit, lies and misdirection to a new level even for MPs so should not remain one.
It is also within the remit of the courts and judges to remove MPs within current rules.
Just sentence any MP to 12 months or more...job done.

To be fair as I understand it, that is not a relevant sentencing consideration.

But it is a possible sentencing result given current parliamentary rules.

[cp8759]

But it is a possible sentencing result given current parliamentary rules.

I don't think a judge should take that into account. The judge should sentence on the basis that he would even if there were no legislation about the recall of MPs. I think it would be quite improper for the judge to think to himself "well, I would pass an 11 month sentence, but if I up it by a month she'll lose her seat as an MP so I'll pass a 12 month sentence".

[DancingDad]

But it is a possible sentencing result given current parliamentary rules.

I don't think a judge should take that into account. The judge should sentence on the basis that he would even if there were no legislation about the recall of MPs. I think it would be quite improper for the judge to think to himself "well, I would pass an 11 month sentence, but if I up it by a month she'll lose her seat as an MP so I'll pass a 12 month sentence".

That's not what I am saying.
I doubt very much whether any judge would add a little on just to force a career change.
Cannot discount it though, however it would not be something within the sentencing statement.
We have seen cases where judges have taken potential impact on future career or prospects and used that to reduce a sentence.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25...-jail-stabbing/
for example.
The point I was making was in response to NMLs assertion that judges should not be able to get an MP fired.
Simple fact is that they can should they decide that the sentence should be 12 months or longer.
And not only MPs, many jobs have rules that preclude someone with a criminal record or a conviction for certain crimes.
Including in this case her other career.
She can no longer practice as a solicitor due to the conviction.

[The Slithy Tove]

Much as I am disgusted by her complete lack of morals:

1. Given the current political state, she's very far from being alone with that attribute
2. The folk of Northern Ireland did elect Bobby Sands, although he was never in a position actually to take his seat. [If you're too young to know who he was, look him up.]

This post has been edited by The Slithy Tove: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 08:15

[rosturra]

[*]The folk of Northern Ireland did elect Bobby Sands, although he was never in a position actually to take his seat. [If you're too young to know who he was, look him up.]

Not that an Irish Nationalist would have taken a seat in HoC anyway...

[DancingDad]

Much as I am disgusted by her complete lack of morals:

1. Given the current political state, she's very far from being alone with that attribute
2. The folk of Northern Ireland did elect Bobby Sands, although he was never in a position actually to take his seat. [If you're too young to know who he was, look him up.]

While I never understood or agreed with a criminal such as Sands being electable, he was honest by his own lights.
Fighting for a political principle, misguided or simply wrong, terrorist or freedom fighter depends very much on personal outlook.
Something I cannot say for an MP who simply lies and tries to play the system to avoid a speeding charge.
There is no acceptable moral compass there.

[Redivi]

Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

[cp8759]

Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.

[oldstoat]

Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.

yeah right. I think it actually means that someone advocating a terrorist cause now, can use history to justify the ends by any means. for example ISIS, the IRA, Baader Minhof etc. Just because, they lost, using your rationale, means, they or any whack job, using terrorist means are potentially correct.

[cp8759]

Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.

yeah right. I think it actually means that someone advocating a terrorist cause now, can use history to justify the ends by any means. for example ISIS, the IRA, Baader Minhof etc. Just because, they lost, using your rationale, means, they or any whack job, using terrorist means are potentially correct.

I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion. I would read things the opposite way: In the past, where seeking change through democratic means was impossible, there may well have been circumstances where acts that would today be classed as terrorism would be justified (say blowing up a Gestapo office). Today, at least in democratic counties, such actions cannot be justified so they are rightly outlawed under the terrorism acts.

[oldstoat]

Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.

yeah right. I think it actually means that someone advocating a terrorist cause now, can use history to justify the ends by any means. for example ISIS, the IRA, Baader Minhof etc. Just because, they lost, using your rationale, means, they or any whack job, using terrorist means are potentially correct.

I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion. I would read things the opposite way: In the past, where seeking change through democratic means was impossible, there may well have been circumstances where acts that would today be classed as terrorism would be justified (say blowing up a Gestapo office). Today, at least in democratic counties, such actions cannot be justified so they are rightly outlawed under the terrorism acts.

but the ISIS or the IRA or any other nut job, cannot get change through democratic means, because they are considered to be nut jobs. But seeing as we have precedence that what was terrorism, in the past , is now called justified, the whack job can use that precedence to use terror to try and become normal, in the future.

[cp8759]

but the ISIS or the IRA or any other nut job, cannot get change through democratic means, because they are considered to be nut jobs. But seeing as we have precedence that what was terrorism, in the past , is now called justified, the whack job can use that precedence to use terror to try and become normal, in the future.

ISIS or the IRA might be proscribed groups, but its their methods that are prohibited, not their objectives.

There's nothing to stop someone campaigning for Irish reunification through a border poll, indeed there are provisions for such a scenario in international law and the nationalists have been campaigning for such an outcome for years.

Similarly, there is nothing to stop anyone setting up a political party for the purposes of campaigning that the UK should become an Islamic theocracy subject to a very strict interpretation of sharia law, as long as such a party were to use purely lawful and peaceful means to promote its objectives, there would be nothing illegal about it.

[oldstoat]

but the premise your reply is that universal sufferage, means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means. Clearly not so. The Belfast and Good Friday agreements where only brought about by terror. ISIS achieved things by terror. If either had been more succesful, we would all be sat here agreeing that the hegemony created by these nutters, was now the norm

[Fredd]

In the past, where seeking change through democratic means was impossible, there may well have been circumstances where acts that would today be classed as terrorism would be justified

Including some parts of the women's suffrage movement, of course - and I don't imagine there'd be many people nowadays who'd want to characterise their (fairly ineffectual) bombing campaign as terrorism.