Oxford University student who stabbed her lover in a drink & drug fuelled row could be spared jail

[????]

Borks - you a sociology graduate? Sounds like the kind of degree most keyboard commies would have

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> it's a different level when your dabbling becomes

> a habit where you are using it as mitigating

> evidence for physically injuring someone.

It wasn't mitigating evidence for physically injuring someone. She pled guilty.

"I'm not a fan of 'promising career' being the reason for leniency"

It wasn't the reason for leniency. It was one of a number of factors the court considered before handing down the sentence.

[jaywalker]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In answer to your question, Otta, drugs make

> people unstable. A surgeon would be expected to be

> stable and predictable.

>

> Her choices of taking drugs and getting into such

> a state she becomes extremely violent does not

> bode well.

>

> Her values are obviously shot. Hardly a reputable,

> reliable, respectable person.

I think this is completely wrong. It is wrong on a psychological level: if I think back to what I did in my youth I would be disqualified from any profession. I have no doubt this is the strength of the recent moves to remove social media records of under 18s (and under 30s perhaps). And yes, metaphorically at least, I did inhale. Am I so very different? It is also wrong on a professional level: surgery has required people with a kind of blind in-human-ness to make progress. They must kill to cure in the development of their profession. This is the reality - see recent histories of the early days of heart surgery. You simply had to be prepared to engage in a kind of recklessness. One could make similar points about other professions, notably the armed services.

[TE44]

Well no worries for posters supporting the hundreds of doctors still practising after conviction including sex offenders. Who knows, there may be a terrible relationship that caused it.

Otta I hope your child never needs to see a paediatrition and your faced with a doctor the GMC have decided to let practice again. But not to worry it won't you won't have a right to know.

[jaywalker]

I find the relatively new power of the government to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Well, I have never heard of 'intelligence' being a mitigating factor for violence and drug abuse.

If drugs affect someone so much that they pick up a knife and hurt someone, then personally i think it's extremely stupid to let it go so lightly.

Her behaviour is extremely unsettling. Out of control.

It's not at all like 'our university days' so fondly recollected as being messy. Not quite the same, unless you also became out of control and lost your temper to such an extent that you can relate to her actions mental state personally.

I can't/ But I have seen someone become that crazy, it's actually scary.

Psychologically, what is the make up of someone who chooses violence? There is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has.

And if anybody would like to confirm that drugs do not affect your mental health at all, in any way over the long term, then please cite your source.

Otta...and no, I do not read the DM. I prefer books.

[TE44]

Jaywalker Anyone can ask for a review at if a lenient sentence has been given at a crown court,

If they have been tried for a number of serious crimes.

https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

Drug/alcohol abuse is a common problem with doctors, where treatment programmes are set up.

There is a big difference between someone recognising they have a problem and someone

Having to face it because her freedom may be taken away. I think if doctors are practising after having been convicted it should be made public especially sex offenders.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/psychiatristssupportservice/drugandalcoholproblems.aspx?theme=mobile

Oops forgot link

[Otta]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well no worries for posters supporting the

> hundreds of doctors still practising after

> conviction including sex offenders. Who knows,

> there may be a terrible relationship that caused

> it.

> Otta I hope your child never needs to see a

> paediatrition and your faced with a doctor the GMC

> have decided to let practice again. But not to

> worry it won't you won't have a right to know.

Why are you assuming that if soneone supports this woman, they automatically support every doctor that may have done something wrong in the past? Surely case by case rarher than blanket response.

And if my child requires a paediatrition amd that paediatrition does tgere job and treats her appropriately, I couldn't really care what they may have done.

[DuncanW]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TE44 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> And if my child requires a paediatrition amd that

> paediatrition does tgere job and treats her

> appropriately, I couldn't really care what they

> may have done.

Dunno about that Otta. Isn't the cornerstone of the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? That seems like a serious wrong-tuen to me.

[DaveR]

"I find the relatively new power of the government to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then."

Hardly new - been around since CJA 1988. And it's not really govt. - the AG is ultimately responsible for all prosecutions carried out by the Crown, and has a number of specified roles/tasks of which this is one. In practice all the work is done by the CPS and the hearing conducted by independent counsel. And the decision on whether sentence is unduly lenient is made by the Court of Appeal i.e. part of the judiciary, so not sure what your point re heteronomy is.

[TE44]

Otta, I do believe cases should be looked at individually, hence why I attached link to doctors

with substance abuse getting help. Where a crime

has been committed involving violence,or where others have been at risk especially children, I find it very difficult to get my head round a decision being made to allow a doctor to practice

who is on the sex register. I thinm this particular story has coincided with the paediatric Dulwich doctor convicted for sex offences and has

Highlighted to me a system I find questionable.

I am not assuming anyone supporting this woman supports every doctor, of course they are very

different crimes. If information is given out,

who knows, there may be many people like yourself

Where it would not be a problem, I would not want a panel having the sole decision with certain criminals.

[Otta]

I was about to say that perhaps some crimes should just be an automatic "never to practice again".

But then I thought what if a 16 year old boy had consensual sex with his 15 years and 10 months girlfriend, parents pressed charges and he got a record for statutory rape. For me he doesn't deserve to have his future taken away.

And I just can't see how it would be workable to any patient to be able to demand the history of any doctor before they decided whether they wanted their care or not.

Imagine you are due an op, you decide you don't want that doctor touching you. The NHS are unlikely to have a spare surgeon on standby, so you then have to wait another 3 months on the waiting list.

It may not be perfect, but I can't think of a better system than the DBS system that we currently have.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"If drugs affect someone so much that they pick up a knife and hurt someone, then personally i think it's extremely stupid to let it go so lightly."

What exactly do you want to happen? Imprisonment? Kicked out of university? Barred from ever working as a surgeon if she ever actually applied to do so (bearing in mind "James Sturman QC said his client's dreams of becoming a surgeon were 'almost impossible' as her conviction would have to be disclosed")? Be specific.

"Her behaviour is extremely unsettling. Out of control...there is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has."

No shit. Hence the criminal conviction and the requirement to stay abstinent from drugs.

PS trust the Daily Mail to find a way to illustrate this story with a woman in a swimsuit.

[Robert Poste's Child]

"There is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has."

Absolutely, so it's a question of what you mean by 'wrong' - mad or bad.

The use of 'choices' is interesting (and I'm not being critical as we all think this kind of thing sometimes). It implies that it was some kind of decision arrived at after a calm, rational consideration of all the options. Obviously we don't know all the details but the coverage has mentioned it happened in the context of drug and alcohol use and may have been triggered by a past abusive relationship when inhibitions were lowered, and there seemed to be hints in there about serious mental health problems (effects of prior abuse plus self-harming as well as cutting BF), with drugs and alcohol as a way of coping. In the circs a doctor would usually get the person off the substances before treating any mental health problems so it seems not unreasonable given it's not in the context of gang or other criminal activity.

Given all this it sounds like she has a lot of work to do and may be unlikely to qualify as a heart surgeon but perhaps she can build on her training to help people in another way.

Disagree with the comments about putting it down to youth though as she's 25 and that seems a bit infantilising - would we say the same if it was a man?

[jaywalker]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I find the relatively new power of the government

> to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the

> Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of

> a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then."

>

> Hardly new - been around since CJA 1988. And it's

> not really govt. - the AG is ultimately

> responsible for all prosecutions carried out by

> the Crown, and has a number of specified

> roles/tasks of which this is one. In practice all

> the work is done by the CPS and the hearing

> conducted by independent counsel. And the

> decision on whether sentence is unduly lenient is

> made by the Court of Appeal i.e. part of the

> judiciary, so not sure what your point re

> heteronomy is.

Well, that is indeed how we differ. It is good that we do - and that we can express such differences. My view is that the state (the AG, who is a political appointment) should not be allowed to appeal the sentencing of the Crown Court. This was the case for really some time. I wonder why it was thought then to be a good thing, and now, for you, its opposite is thought just to be part of 'justice'?

[TE44]

Doesn't the attorneys general office need to

have a request from the public, can they ask for

a review off there own backs?

[ianr]

Unduly lenient sentence referrals can arise in a number of ways:

Areas may consider the sentence unduly lenient;

interested parties including victims or the bereaved may contact the CPS;

media coverage may prompt the Area to consider the case;

the Attorney General may also be contacted directly, by MPs, peers, pressure groups or members of the public. In those cases, the AGO will request papers from the Area with casework responsibility for the case. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/unduly_lenient_sentences/#a05

I don't see that anything precludes the AG from spontaneously taking an interest in a case, but in any event he is going to have to consider the CPS papers and opinion, or find himself at risk of having leave refused (as in the case mentioned in the "How the decision is made" section).

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

it's just providing a way for a higher court to review a sentence to see if it's ridiculously lenient. The sentencing power remains with the judiciary and not the executive, and the courts are perfectly happy to tell the prosecutors to sod off.

[TE44]

Yes thanks, that's what I thought.

Jaywalker I was confused by your post. Isn't all

The judiciary system political, I think you are

assuming, where someone may understand this is part of this system this automatically attaches it with "justice".

I'm sure the medical authorities who decide whether

a convicted doctor may continue practising will go through a procedure that will be covered by legal boundaries, (the law is political). I think it

should be more transparent in some cases after sentencing where the offenders are responsible

for others especially children.

[jaywalker]

Well, I can only repeat. Why was it previously NOT possible for the AG to appeal against the leniency of a sentence, but then it became possible!

A sight of Daily Mail headlines might be a clue.

The basic point is twofold. 1. The more autonomy the judiciary have the better - this autonomy is always under threat. The popular press now exert SO much influence on politicians that there need to be institutional checks against it 2. The review process tends to increase prison sentences when these are already completely out of control (see prison numbers as a percentage of the population cf other EU countries).

The judiciary is not ipso facto political: it is established as a separate power under the Crown. It can tell Theresa that she is exceeding her powers, and it recently did!

[TE44]

Jaywalker Do you believe the judiciary should also

have autonomy when reviews have have been too harsh. How long have the public had to go through AG office for review, i can't find anything regarding the crown telling May she's exceeding powers. Can you give a link please.

[TE44]

I believe Jaywalker you are speaking on the whole

not simply the AG position. The so called justice

system has always felt unfair to me, when looking at or bringing criminals to justice. Even when it

was easier to a bring a judicial review against those who believe they are untouchable, there was

A huge distance between understanding the injustices and the legal framework which often

Government ministers themselves can remove themselves and leave it to the lawyers to battle out. Of course its not so easy (unless you have the money) to go down this line with a government

that seems to be able to rule outside of there own laws.

[jaywalker]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jaywalker Do you believe the judiciary should

> also

> have autonomy when reviews have have been too

> harsh. How long have the public had to go through

> AG office for review, i can't find anything

> regarding the crown telling May she's exceeding

> powers. Can you give a link please.

Think of it this way: why can't a jury's decision be appealed? Governments are always flirting with the idea of abolishing juries, and at the margin they already have. But only in a very few cases (so far).

Generally it is better that someone is found not guilty when guilty than the reverse: the system should uphold this. And the same goes for sentences.

I agree that the judicial system is unfair. But there are many aspects to this unfairness: the predispositions and world-views of judges, the pantomime of the trial, the ill-educated nature of juries, the refusal to see social determination of crime (ressentiment and revenge, all the time).

As for the judiciary independent under the Crown, the Supreme Court is: it can and does tell the government that to act in a certain way exceeds its powers (as it did over Article 50 for example).

[TE44]

As it also told ruled against the Government

Regarding air quality in 2015 but it took a judicial review to force them to react and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to delay again.

It would be interesting to see how much it has cost

Going through legal appeals to keep information from the public. Sorry off topic.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"unfairness: the predispositions and world-views of judges, the pantomime of the trial, the ill-educated nature of juries, the refusal to see social determination of crime (ressentiment and revenge, all the time)."

Why do you think those prejudices only lead to unduly harsh sentences?

Why do you think it harms the independence of the judiciary when one part of the judiciary reviews the conduct of another part?

Why do you think juries are inferior to you?