Friday 12 March 2021

But Judge, She Was On Trial For Being 'Brazenly Dishonest'!

Heather McCarthy was spared from being sent to custody last year when she told the court she had a 10-month-old baby at home.
And the 33-year-old was instead given an eight month suspended sentence for defrauding the company she worked for of thousands of pounds.

But, wait! There's more! 

The judge who gave her a suspended sentence said he had taken McCarthy at her word, not believing anyone "would be so brazenly dishonest".

Ummm, I think you're in the wrong job, aren't you? 

But after her claims were found to be untrue, the same judge has now jailed her for eight months after McCarthy admitted being in contempt of court.

Hang on! She had an eight month sentence - suspended - for the first crime. Shouldn't that too be activated?  

Judge Paul Lawton told her: "It was an outrageous untruth in the face of the court, and it evidences a willingness by you to lie whatever the circumstances, and whatever the potential consequences.
"How you thought you would not be found out is beyond me."

Lots of things seem to be beyond you. I know that's not unusual in our unfit-for-purpose system, but come on!

3 comments:

Mudplugger said...

He could have made them concurrent sentences, so no change there either.

Concurrent sentences are an abomination - offences which are not concurrent should not attract concurrent sentences. In this case, she committed two different offences on separate occasions, hence consecutive sentences are the only acceptable outcome.

Sgt Albert Hall said...

It has long been my belief that information given in mitigation at criminal trials should be given on oath by the defendant.

In cases where the defendant is unable to give evidence in person, the defending lawyer should be obliged to certify that they have personally verified the information they offer to the court and that too should be on oath.

Where lies are told to the court by the defendant or lawyer the appropriate charge would be perjury not contempt. The fear of prosecution would certainly focus the minds of unscrupulous lawyers who all too often are the ghost-writers of fairy tales presented and accepted by courts on a daily basis.

JuliaM said...

"He could have made them concurrent sentences, so no change there either."

Indeed... *sighs*

"It has long been my belief that information given in mitigation at criminal trials should be given on oath by the defendant."

I like that idea!