ooh didnt know that ,looks like a bit of poridge then

Told you all a year ago.....

Maximum value under the fraud act 2006 that are sentenced in a crown court is 10 years ...gulp, not that he'll get it but he will get bird.

You forgot the third aspect of imprisonment - punishment. All are equally important and applicable.

I didn't forget it, but there are plenty of other punishments available that do not cost the taxpayer as much money. Some that actually give something back to society. Generally, I'd always edge away from prison being a suitable punishment for someone who isn't a danger to the public which, in the case of this offence, Raynor isn't.

What does anyone get from Raynor being put away? He is punished, most of the rest of the country has to foot the bill, but who benefits from it?

From what i've been told bird is nailed on, has been since day one

Wouldn't be too sure he will do any porridge. Seen far worse go unpunished.

Yes, I should imagine the judge at his first trial didn't point anything out explicitly and probably just made vague noises about Raynor having been 'a bit naughty'.

Or, alternatively, when handing down the suspended sentence, he would have warned him in the clearest terms that, should he break the law again during the term of that sentence, that he would face a spell in prison.

His first trial had nothing to do with counterfeiting though. That sounds like I'm excusing him, but I'm not. I'm just against imposing imprisonment for crimes like this.



Probably. Maybe it's just my dislike of using prison as a catch-all punishment in cases where it doesn't serve any real purpose getting the better of me.

But this is where our fine judicial system needs sorting.

Fraud is generally dealt with harsher than a physical assault. We shall wait to see and then have the debate regarding Raynor's sentence for fraud and the sentence which C0ckhead received.

I have a similar aversion, but I really don't think that is the case here. The terms of a suspended sentence are very clear - reoffend and you go to prison. It doesn't matter what the nature of the offence is. What matters is that he was convicted of a very serious offence and, had he been anyone other than a professional sportsman, would probably have been sent down there and then. Instead of thinking how fortunate he was at that stage and going all out to keep his nose clean, he decides to defraud the public of thousands of pounds.

To my mind, anyone who has been given a second chance and can't even behave like a reasonable human being for the term of their suspended sentence [ideserves[/i to be imprisoned.

Amen

I'm not sure it's quite as open and shut as that. There is some room for manoeuvre, I believe.



I can't really disagree with any of that. I'm just not sure him deserving to be imprisoned completely vindicates him being imprisoned when there are other options available that would probably offer more to society.

From what I understand, there would have to be significant extenuating circumstances for it not to be the case. In this instance, I'm not sure such circumstances exist.



It would make something of a mockery of suspended sentences if he didn't go to prison. He had to avoid reoffending for a period of 18 months and that was too much for him. He should have been imprisoned for the original offence and he should certainly be imprisoned now. I agree that, if this case were to be taken in isolation, a custodial sentence would be inappropriate. But I don't think it's right or just to take the case in isolation given the issue of the suspended sentence.