Van Rijn was jailed for two years and nine months at Swansea Crown Court on March 9.
Last week, Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Globe and Judge Elgan Edwards, sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, heard his challenge to that term.
New evidence? Well, no:
At the appeal Van Rijn's lawyers argued that was not fair and he ought to have been given a community sentence.
Is there a ‘Chutzpah Award’ for defence lawyers?
At the hearing, Lady Justice Hallett said they had read "moving details" of "tragedies" Van Rijn had suffered in his private life which he had said ought to count in his favour as very powerful personal mitigation.
Ah, the ‘Oh, I Had Such A Hard Childhood’ defence….
It was also submitted he had a long history of volunteering, helping those less fortunate than himself.
Or, as normal human beings see it, ‘a long history of sourcing compliant victims’…
However, the judge ruled: "A great deal has been said on his behalf, but there is simply no reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines."
He added: "This was an appalling breach of trust. We are satisfied that the sentence of 33 months was well within the legitimate sentencing regime and this appeal must be dismissed."
Couldn’t you have added on a few years too, just for the sheer cheek of it?
5 comments:
The courts do have the power to increase sentences after a failed appeal.Unfortunately rarely used.The defence has nothing to lose by asking.
As Vic Reeves would say in this case "I really want to see those fingers"
Jaded
I fear that you judge too harshly.
Van Rijn's lawyers (how many?) should have had their way on the condition that any children that they had would have the services of Mr Van Rijn's services as babysitter imposed upon them.
The lawyers choose easy work like this where they can prevaricate and yet can't be found for cases of real import. They should be subject to three strikes and you're out.
Perhaps the best way to be to have a system of appeals against sentence which works on a 'double or quits' principle.
"The defence has nothing to lose by asking."
And seemingly nothing - in the way of targets - to gain. Maybe they should?
"...on the condition that any children that they had would have the services of Mr Van Rijn's services as babysitter imposed upon them."
I like the way you think!
" They should be subject to three strikes and you're out."
Agreed! Though ukFred's idea has equal merit.. ;)
Post a Comment