From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 20/08/2025 13:05, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 > On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:24:29 +0100, Pancho  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 >> There is also another important category, where the defendant doesn't 
 >> know if they are guilty, or not. It is quite often that essential facts 
 >> are undisputed, and it is for a jury to interpret the law. 
 > 
 > That's completely the wrong way round. In a trial, it's the judge's role to 
 > interpret the law, and the jury's role to decide on the facts. 
 > 
 >> As I said, I'm pretty sure I would have acquitted her. My politics are 
 >> centrist. I have no sympathy with targeting immigrants. I think there 
 >> are a lot of Reform voters who would have been more sympathetic than me. 
 > 
 > I think Ricky Jones was lucky. A different jury could well have found him 
 > guilty. I think Lucy Connolly was unlucky. A different judge could well 
 have 
 > given her a shorter sentence and suspended it. 
  
 Well, the judge was constrained and bound by the Sentencing Council's 
 guidelines for the offence which indicate a starting point of 3 years in 
 prison before any additions or reductions.  There were aggravating 
 factors due to the timing of the messages just after the Southport 
 incident, and he concluded that the right sentence in the circumstances 
 should therefore be 3 years and 6 months. That should be reduced, he 
 said, by 25% 'to reflect the guilty plea which had not been indicated at 
 the first opportunity'.  Hence, he arrived at 31 months, with which the 
 Court of Appeal agreed, saying: 
  
 "there is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence 
 imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive". 
  
 She wasn't 'unlucky' therefore but sentenced properly and fairly.  And 
 the term imposed precluded any possibility at all of its being 
 suspended, as that only applies if the sentence handed down is under 2 
 years. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)