Our thanks to William for this.
Three months ago we posted a piece on Natalie Saul, a 37-year-old accountant who stole £350,000 from her technology firm. From the article:
Saul was given a two-year suspended sentence and 250 hours unpaid work by Judge Catherine Newman, who admitted her sentence was ‘wholly exceptional’ and fell outside sentencing guidelines.
She told Southwark Crown Court Saul was ‘not the general stuff of which the prison population is made’. [J4MB: Possibly true, but if so, it’s only because gynocentric judges are so reluctant to send women to prison.]
The judge added: ‘I’m taking a considerable risk that the Crown will think it lenient and appeal, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take.’ [J4MB: What risk is the judge taking upon herself? Precisely none.]
Lucie Daniels, defending Saul, had argued her client was ‘shaken’ by the loss of her grandmother in 2013 and was a committed charity worker.
‘This offending is so out of character, she has worked hard and paid her taxes and been a responsible citizen,’ said Ms Daniels.
Yet her charitable efforts could not mitigate the loss to Idio, who hemorrhaged a total of £348,439 to her gambling addiction. [J4MB: The company lost a total of almost £350,000 not to Natalie Saul, you’ll notice, but to her ‘gambling addiction’. The “journalist” of the piece is, predictably, a woman.]