In mitigation defence barrister Peter Du Feu called his client a ‘sad individual’ who had ‘let himself down.’
He said: “His response to this is shame, embarrassment, huge remorse.”
At getting caught.
Sentencing, Judge Maria Lamb jailed Mezzone for a total of five years and said he will sign the sex offenders register for life.
It's not long enough by far. But...wait.
But on Wednesday last week, at the Court of Appeal, Lady Justice Macur, Mr Justice Lavender and Sir Alan Wilkie granted his request and reduced his jail time to four years.
Why? What possible mitigation could have been offered? We don't know. The fearless journalists tasked with covering this story don't appear to have bothered to find out...
2 comments:
It's basic court reporting practise to include any relevant mitigation when reporting a court case. Unless there are legal reasons that preclude the reporting of the mitigation then it should be reported. If the mitigation was relevant and reportable then it should have been reported. I've got a question on this one though. Was this misreporting the fault of the reporter who may even have been from PA or a similar agency that does court reports, or does the fault lie with the newspaper's sub editors? Was the mitigation properly reported and just left out by the subs?
"Unless there are legal reasons that preclude the reporting of the mitigation then it should be reported."
Well, indeed. Otherwise, what's the point? Do they teach them now in journalism school to tell half a story?
Post a Comment