From: uklm@permabulator.33mail.com 
  
 On 11:05  17 Aug 2025, GB said: 
 > On 16/08/2025 19:07, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >> On 16/08/2025 14:12, billy bookcase wrote: 
 >>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
 >>> news:mgatksFalvoU1@mid.individual.net... 
 >>>> 
 >>>> [SNIP] 
 >>>> 
 >>>> As to how 'uncharacteristic' it was of her, other rather similar 
 >>>> posts from her are also referred to in the CoA judgement.€ Make 
 >>>> up your own mind. 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> With possible an expert defence witness on the perils of social 
 >>>>> media.engagement€€ Plus tears in the box etc. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Might have shorted out her video link though. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Do read the judgement to avoid further errors. 
 >>> 
 >>> The judgement was only *after* she'd already pleaded guilty. And 
 >>> *her own counsel* agreed that "she "intended to incite serious 
 >>> violence" * 
 >>> 
 >>> Had she, and he not done so, then the outcome might have been 
 >>> altogether different; with no call for any judgement at all, 
 >> It's entirely the decision of the client how to plead.€ And she was 
 >> fully aware of the consequences, as demonstrated by her signing, 
 >> before the hearing, 'the endorsement' prepared by Mr Muir: 
 >> 
 >> "I Lucy Connolly [date of birth given] confirm that I do not wish 
 >> to enter a basis of plea and I understand that this means I am 
 >> conceding that at the point I published the tweet I intended to 
 >> incite as per the category 1 feature. I do this as I do not believe 
 >> I will be successful at a Newton hearing and I do not want to risk 
 >> my credit. This is my decision under no pressure from anyone else. I 
 >> know therefore that this would be a category 1A offence with a 
 >> starting point of 3 years€ imprisonment." 
 >> 
 >> See para 43 of the CoA judgement. 
 >> 
 > 
 > That's actually rather full of jargon. For example, I had to search 
 > to find out what a Newton hearing is. "Category 1 feature", 
 > similarly. 
 > 
 > Even so, the "starting point of 3 years€ imprisonment" seems clear 
 > as crystal to me. Not even a simpleton could misunderstand it. 
 > 
 > Perhaps, she made a complicated calculation and convinced herself 
 > that she'd be sentenced to less than 2 years, so it could be 
 > suspended? 
  
 Section 52 of the judgement given at the appeal hearing states the 
 following. 
  
    "In his submissions made after the oral evidence, Mr King made a 
    number of points about the records kept by Mr Muir (such as, the use 
    of abbreviations and shorthand references to the guideline rather 
    than explicit reference to an intention to incite serious violence; 
    and the error in the endorsement of referring to the category 1 
    feature when he meant category A)." 
  
 It seems the jargon used in a such a case was such that the particular 
 class of "feature" became mixed up in the notes of Lucy Connolly's 
 solicitor, Liam Muir. 
  
 However, this error was dismissed by the appeal court as a "semantic 
 criticism" (s.59). 
  
  
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)