Yet another suspended sentence. From the article:
She was also originally charged with perverting the course of justice by making a malicious allegation of sexual assault, but this charge was dropped by the prosecution.
Why was the charge dropped, you may well ask? Maybe because it might have resulted in a prison sentence, and the criminal justice system wants to see fewer women in prison, ideally none?
Some weasel words from the judge in this extract:
Mendis pleaded guilty to one count of blackmail when she appeared in court on Friday.
Sentencing her, Judge Peter Clarke QC said: ‘I pass a sentence on the basis you have used the criminal justice system to attempt to get a large sum of money from your ex-lover.
‘There was obviously some bad blood between you and you demanded £200,000 and it was linked to a rape allegation that would be withdrawn.
‘There were matters where you were wronged and part of your motive was impure, it was revenge on a man you felt had betrayed you.’
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
Judge Clarke appears to be defending her in his summing up.
He’s putting her case FOR her as though he were acting for the DEFENSE for Petes sake!
Explaining away her actions and mitigating her on her behalf, as though she were a wronged party herself!
I’d like like to see any instructions he’s been given about cases like this, or perhaps he’s speaking his own mind, in which case he should not be allowed to take anymore cases like this.
If I recall correctly, this policy of leniency towards women emanates from the laughingly misnamed Ministry of Justice, set up by the odious Jack Straw. Few can have doubted that the intention was always to enable politicians and bureaucrats to impose ideologically driven social policy on the judiciary, which is now anything but independent and impartial.
Of the myriad reforms necessary to restore sanity in England, the ability of the general population to remove public functionaries from office when necessary must be one.
Reblogged this on L8in.