Monday, April 23, 2012

Ante Upped

Trenton Oldfield, the Boat Race man, appeared in court this morning. Someone has obviously had another look at the charge he faced (Section5 Public Order Act) and decided that a fine-only offence wouldn't fit the bill; it was bound to lead to widespread tabloid indignation . He is therefore off to the the Crown Court at Isleworth, whether for trial or sentence I do not yet know.
I hope that they can find a judge who didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge.

Later:-  Here is a link to CPS advice on common-law Public Nuisance. 

31 comments:

  1. He appears to have been charged with the common law offence of committing a public nuisance, to which he offered no plea.

    Wiki has an article on the offence:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nuisance

    ReplyDelete
  2. This really is pathetic.

    Any kind of case which has a media-worthy angle to it is jumped up and down on by the CPS and overcharged/prosecuted like their very lives depend on it (see also; Liam Stacey)... Racist cops being abusive to detainees in the back of a van, on the other hand, that warrants NFA (until, of course, the media takes an interest).

    Another totally populist decision by the CPS, trying to second guess the public mood rather than applying the law to the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Public Nuisance is the obvious charge and a short spell inside, to deter this idiot and others, is just what is needed. Justice only gets done when the media/public take an interest. Otherwise, it is the usual ineffective liberal sentencing guidelines and ineffective justice.

      Delete
    2. Brontosaurus - with respect, public nuisance is rarely charged these days and no sensible lawyer would see it as the "obvious charge."

      Delete
    3. ObiterJ - I cannot account for the lack of sensible lawyers. If you look at the original post entitled Smug Git and my comment on 9th April, I said then he should have been charged with Public Nuisance. So, he is not the only smug git!

      Delete
  3. The disruption of a simple and harmless pleasure for thousands at the the venue and several millions more watching on television requires a more robust response than a fine (which can easily be paid by a whip-round among the "anti-elitist" brigade).

    A meaningless penalty will guarantee that every public event in the calendar will become a target for these rebels without a clue. Security will have to be increased - the bill paid by us, of course - and our enjoyment will be lessened.

    That said, if he does get a custodial sentence then the victims of burglary, robbery and assault who regularly see their tormentors walk away from court will wonder yet again at the strangeness of our sentencing guidelines...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is a link - hopefully it will work

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boat-race-swimmer-trenton-oldfield-banned-from-olympic-torch-route-7669383.html

    Charge of public nuisance brought

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trial by Tabloid? What are we doing? Had I sat on the bench that sent him 'upstairs', I'd be ashamed of myself. He's no different to any other idiot and to treat him differently in law makes a mockery of the system. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm ashamed of my colleagues who let the law of The Sun/Daily Mail etc. get the better of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I am keen to know is whether, in the end, he will get a punishment that he could have got anyway without the extra cost of sending him to the Crown Court.

      Delete
    2. It was the magistrate (and not the tabloids) who sent him upstairs.

      Handy to have a ready-made defence against Draconian judgments though. Covered both ways now.

      Too harsh? "Musta been the red-tops!"

      Too lenient? "It weren't me Guv, it wuz the Guidelines!"

      Whatever happened to 'it's a fair cop'?

      That's the trouble with 'em nowadays - it's always somebody else's fault!

      Delete
  6. Surely the punishment for this 'git' (as previously, not my term) must meet or exceed that for the drunken idiot in Swansea who tweeted foul rubbish about the footballer who collapsed ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no comparison between the two cases so I don't know why you have raised it. Liam Stacey got 56 days. (28 in reality) Oldfield should get 6 months. (3 months in reality) to provide an effective deterrent.

      Delete
  7. If you look at some of the case law for Public Nuisance the sentences are through the roof in terms of your standard 'public order' offences. Lengthy custodial sentences are the norm.

    ReplyDelete
  8. May be so, but these heavily sentenced cases will all be significantly more serious on their facts than the normal statutory public order offences – and more serious than the case of the present twerp.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are similar historical offenders such as Emily Wilding Davison. Sadly I don't think this person's purpose was as high-minded as hers but social protest has historically been a stepping stone on the path of great political change in many countries. To bar such protest might risk greater and more extreme levels of action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, in this case, the boats didn't just run him down and continue. I am all for that sort of protest. Nothing like a martyr for a real cause!

      Delete
  10. A Cambridge judge is likely to let him off completely - even award him a sum from public funds. An Oxford judge, OTOH will know that the man's actions probably cost Oxford the race. A lengthy prison sentence would seem inevitable (and entirely justified)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there perhaps an LSE judge, who could count as a non-elitist peer (as in 'equal', not 'of the realm')?

      Delete
    2. Preferably a specialist in contemporary urbanism.

      Delete
  11. I was thoroughly enjoying a great race with the result in the balance when the whole thing was wrecked by this idiot. I don't believe I'm elitist - I work for a living in an office, but I ejoy watching the race each year. His actions resulted in a tremendous disappointment for the crowd present and the TV audience, so public nuisance rather than public order seems reasonable to me. It requires a sentence to ensure it doesn't happen again. If that's some days inside or a significant fine, then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. At this stage it is possible that the case will go before a jury. Contempt of court law should therefore prevent further discussion about the facts of the matter or expressions of opinion about the defendant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A blog being possibly subject to contempt of court proceedings is an urban myth. Even the most widely read blogs (Gadget, for example) cannot create 'a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced'.

      Delete
    2. A much tougher stance is now being taken with regard to contempt. One must be careful.

      Delete
    3. It's a shame that you weren't able to advise Peter Hain on the subject!

      Delete
  13. Nice to see someone in England working out that common law offences might give sufficient scope to deal with a wide range of potential misbehaviour rather than the ubiquitous Section 5 Public Order Act.

    Given the number of Scots in senior Westminster posts over the years I'm constantly surprised that no-one has worked out the benefits of using common law offences.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nobody can reasonably argue that Oldfield did not cause a public nuisance. Putting his deplorable and wholly self-centred actions into the same S5 POA category as a kid swearing at the police would be a travesty of justice.
    Do we want every sports event to be at high risk of disruption and ruin, which is what will happen if this kind of action is not punished with a serious sentence. Of course the right to protest should remain and it will. But this was not a protest (against what ?); it was an act of moronic destruction. I am very pleased the charge was changed. (Swimming under water in the Thames may also leave him with some internal punishment.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Where conduct is covered by the definition of a statutory offence then the latter should be charged rather than public nuisance. The authority for this is no less than Lord Bingham in R v Rimmington and Goldstein [2005] UKHL 63.

    Public nuisance is a very problematic offence legally and, in 2010, the Law Commission proposed its replacement by a statutory offence.

    It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.

    ReplyDelete
  16. But that's the problem. His conduct is not satisfactorily covered by a statutory offence, and one should be created for just this kind of serious, disruptive behaviour that causes the kind of damage and destruction that it does. But we have a common law offence of public nuisance and, for the moment, it is right to use it. I doubt that a lengthy prison sentence will be the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the CPS website, complete with teeth-jarring split infinitive: R v Ong 2001 1 Cr App R (S) 117
      Plan to turn off lights at Premiership football match. D intended to financially gain by placing bets. 4 years.

      The financial motive must be aggravating, but the number of people affected would be much smaller. I would not like to bet on any sentence.

      Delete
  17. "Just assuming" a verdict of 'Guilty' - perhaps a sentence of XXhours unpaid work might be appropriate?

    As he has already'risk assessed' swimming in the Thames in vicinity of numerous boats, and there is always a need for litter collection - he could be asked to do it in the river?

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.