• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

For avoidance of doubt, here is a direct quotation from the judgment re Connolly ~vs~ the Crown

24. 25. 26. At the hearing, Mr Naeem Valli (then, as now, appearing for the prosecution) made submissions in accordance with his sentencing note. He submitted that the offence should be viewed in the context of the widespread and extensively reported scenes of disorder, violence and criminal damage around the country which followed the murders of the children, beginning in Southport and spreading to other locations. He stated: “There is no doubt that false information shared on the social media platform on 29 July led to the widespread disorder and stirred up racial hatred. The relevant chronology of the disorder is as follows. On 30 July, there was disorder in Southport. On 31 July, there was disorder in Manchester, Hartlepool, Aldershot and London. On 2 August, there was disorder in Sunderland and Liverpool. On 3 August, there was disorder in multiple locations, including Belfast, Nottingham and Hull. On 4 August, a hotel housing asylum seekers was attacked in Rotherham during the day. There was also on that date disorder in Middlesbrough and other cities. On 5 August, there was disorder in Birmingham, Belfast, Plymouth and Darlington. On 6 August, there was disorder in Belfast.”
Click to expand...

The judge was assisted by a pre-sentence report (“PSR”). This referred to the very sad fact that in 2011 the applicant’s son, then aged just 19 months, had died in circumstances which had given rise to complaints of negligence against the medical practitioners who had treated the child. The death of the child had affected the applicant’s mental health, with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The author of the PSR recorded that the applicant had explained that the events in Southport had brought back memories and emotions relating to her own loss, and had said that she acted out of a desire to protect her own and others’ children. The PSR also noted that the applicant, when questioned by the author, had denied that her tweet had any racist undertones or could incite hatred or violence, and had downplayed her behaviour. The author assessed the applicant as having failed sufficiently to consider the consequences of her actions, particularly in the context of the influence of social media and her underlying racist attitudes. The applicant put before the judge a number of character references which spoke very highly of her. The judge was also assisted by a psychiatric report prepared in 2012, which referred to the circumstances in which the applicant’s son had died and her continuing distress and anger with the medical professionals who had treated her son, and whose advice she had accepted despite her instinctive feeling that her son was more seriously ill than they said. The consultant psychiatrist who wrote the report diagnosed the applicant as having developed a severe bereavement reaction, classified as a form of adjustment disorder, with persisting symptoms. In his submissions on the applicant’s behalf, Mr Muir made clear that, notwithstanding what she had said to the author of the PSR, the applicant stood by her guilty plea and did not put forward any basis for that plea. He submitted that the applicant had been devastated by what had happened in Southport, especially given her own loss of a child, Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Connolly v R and that her tweet had been an expression of her true feelings rather than an attempt to exploit the Southport tragedy. He pointed to private messages which the applicant had sent on 30 July 2024, in which she had said that she could not stop crying and thinking “it could so easily be our kids”, and said that she had become “incandescent with rage”.
Click to expand...

Mr Muir also referred to a tweet on 30 June 2024 in which the applicant had condemned those who were teaching their children hate and racism. He emphasised that the offending tweet had been posted before the outbreak of any violence. Mr Muir then referred to tweets which the applicant had posted after the outbreak of disorder in various places, in which she had spoken against violence and said that she didn’t want civil unrest on the streets. He submitted that those attempts to stop the violence should be treated as a mitigating factor, or as tempering the aggravating feature mentioned by the prosecution. 27. 28. 29. 30. Mr Muir went on to say this: “We also submit that the messages on 31 July also show that whatever Ms Connolly's intent -- and again I hasten to add, we have not submitted a basis of plea -- was on posting the offending post, that intention was short lived and she did not expect or intend the significant violence to follow in that she very quickly tried to quell it.” Mr Muir did not dispute that the offence fell into category A1 of the guideline. He submitted that there were a number of important mitigating factors: the absence of previous convictions; the applicant’s previous positive good character, as described in the references; the display by the applicant of some remorse; the fact that the applicant was the primary carer for her 12 year old daughter, who was being cared for by her father but would suffer if her mother was imprisoned; the personal mitigation relating to the death of the applicant’s son; and the fact that she was facing a first custodial sentence at a time of particularly difficult conditions in prisons. At the start of his sentencing remarks, the judge observed that sentences for those who incite racial hatred and disharmony in our society are intended both to punish and to deter. He said that when the applicant posted the offending tweet she was well aware of how volatile the situation was. That volatility had led to serious disorder in a number of parts of the country. He referred to the racist remarks in other tweets posted at different times by the applicant. Addressing the sentencing guideline, the judge said that culpability was clearly in category A, as both counsel agreed, because the applicant intended to incite serious violence, and harm in category 1 because she encouraged activity which threatened or endangered life. The judge said that in relation to harm it was relevant to note the presence of a further factor: the applicant had sought and achieved widespread dissemination of her message. The guideline starting point was therefore 3 years’ imprisonment; but, said the judge, there was a further significant aggravating factor: “… namely, the timing of the publication, when there was obviously a particularly sensitive social climate. It would be difficult to think of a more sensitive such time than during the
Click to expand...

Adam King (instructed by Cobleys Solicitors Ltd) for the Applicant Naeem Valli (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 15 May 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment
Click to expand...

ETA: Link can be found here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2005604648384929806
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
For avoidance of doubt, here is a direct quotation from the judgment re Connolly ~vs~ the Crown






Click to expand...
Those quotations only mention the pre-sentence report and an earlier psychiatric report, not the "Special Report".

Here's a link to the judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/657.html

It also mentions "a further psychiatric report" obtained by the defence but not used at the sentencing hearing, but you have assured us that the "Special Report" is "nothing to do with psychiatric evidence".
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is not my problem you did not follow the case at the time. A special report was ordered. It is not done as a matter of course when people plead guilty to a crime. Edited: maybe it is unkind of me to expect others to be on the same level of awareness. Connolly was a 'special report' case because she had lost a child some years before. In any case Connolly has nothing whatsoever to do with 'free speech'.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that a "Special Report", prepared by social workers, was ordered by the judge? All you have produced so far is evidence of a routine pre-sentence report.
 
Mojo said:
Do you have any evidence that a "Special Report", prepared by social workers, was ordered by the judge? All you have produced so far is evidence of a routine pre-sentence report.
Click to expand...
Spin it your way. There was NO special report. Everyone who pleads guilty gets a standard report as a standard procedure. You are right. Connolly had no special report done. It is a massive lie otherwise you would have known about it. ETA Brilliant the way you've further capitalised, 'special report' to prove I am a scurrilous wrongdoer.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Spin it your way. There was NO special report. Everyone who pleads guilty gets a standard report as a standard procedure.
Click to expand...
Yes, unless the court deems it unnecessary, per section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020:
If the offender is aged 18 or over, the court must obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming the opinion unless, in the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
You are right. Connolly had no special report done. It is a massive lie otherwise you would have known about it.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that this "Special Report" was ordered? What legislation or guidance requires a "Special Report"?
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Yes, unless the court deems it unnecessary, per section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020:


Do you have any evidence that this "Special Report" was ordered? What legislation or guidance requires a "Special Report"?
Click to expand...
Please explain why you decided to capitalise 'Special Report'. Why not just concede you are wrong and that Connolly DID undergo a special report and that it is NOT standard for defendants who plead guilty to undergo a report into their emotional state. Also admit you knew absolutely nothing about it and now you are trying to pretend you knew about it all along but that it was a common-or-garden report that everybody pleading guilty gets. I gave you a citation but rather than say thank you you just can't bear that I am right about Connolly.
 
Vixen said:
Why not just concede you are wrong and that Connolly DID undergo a special report and that it is NOT standard for defendants who plead guilty to undergo a report into their emotional state. Also admit you knew absolutely nothing about it and now you are trying to pretend you knew about it all along but that it was a common-or-garden report that everybody pleading guilty gets. I gave you a citation but rather than say thank you you just can't bear that I am right about Connolly.
Click to expand...
You have provided no evidence that a "Special Report" was ordered in this case. All you have provided is evidence of a regular pre-sentence report, as required by s.30 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Do you have any evidence of a "Special Report" being ordered?
 
Mojo said:
I capitalised it because I was quoting you, and you had decided to capitalise it.

Why did you decide to capitalise it?
Click to expand...
To understand the Lucy Connolly case (a) we have to understand why she pleaded 'guilty' and (b) the grounds on which she appealed. Because her tweet urged a threat to life it was categorised as an A1 offence, with the minimum sentencing guideline starting at seven years. On the advice of her lawyers she pleaded guilty in order to have a sentence reduction for having done so. In her appeal she claimed (i) poor advice from her lawyer and (ii) personal mitigation. This is the relevant bit. Her special pleading was to do with having lost a child. This is where the special report came in.

To make this out for the appeal she waived her legal advice privilege and—rare in an appeal case—the Court of Appeal took witness evidence from the solicitor. That examination and cross-examination of her lawyer was not, however, to the benefit of Connolly. The solicitor was able to show that she had been fully and properly advised. Making such an accusation against her solicitor was a high-risk move and it backfired badly.


Connolly’s other ground of appeal—her personal mitigation—seemed more promising. She had herself suffered a dreadful tragedy involving her own child, and she believed that the sentencing judge should have had more regard to this in mitigation. Perhaps had she focused on this one ground rather than making inaccurate claims about her legal advice the appeal, judges would have been more sympathetic.


But the problem with this personal mitigation was, in the appeal court’s view, that it was hard to connect with the text of the tweet sent. As the appeal judgment states “she did not post a message of support and sympathy to the victims of the Southport attack and the bereaved. Nor, we would add, did she post a message of hostility confined to the perpetrator of the Southport attack. She chose instead to incite serious violence against large numbers of persons. The applicant’s personal history cannot significantly reduce her culpability for that serious offence.” PROSPECT MAGAZINE
Click to expand...

Thus, your claim that the special report into her emotional state was a run-of-the-mill one, is completely inaccurate.

In addition, probation officers are classed as social workers.
 
Vixen said:
To understand the Lucy Connolly case (a) we have to understand why she pleaded 'guilty' and (b) the grounds on which she appealed. Because her tweet urged a threat to life it was categorised as an A1 offence, with the minimum sentencing guideline starting at seven years. On the advice of her lawyers she pleaded guilty in order to have a sentence reduction for having done so. In her appeal she claimed (i) poor advice from her lawyer and (ii) personal mitigation. This is the relevant bit. Her special pleading was to do with having lost a child. This is where the special report came in.



Thus, your claim that the special report into her emotional state was a run-of-the-mill one, is completely inaccurate.

In addition, probation officers are classed as social workers.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that a special report, capitalised or otherwise, was ordered by the judge in this case?
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
You have provided no evidence that a "Special Report" was ordered in this case. All you have provided is evidence of a regular pre-sentence report, as required by s.30 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Do you have any evidence of a "Special Report" being ordered?
Click to expand...
The Sentencing Act you refer to describes legal requirements. It then lists the EXCEPTIONS [as to when these can be disregarded as a mandatory PSR not needed] and it is this section which refers to persons under 18, persons between 18 and 25 and persons deemed potentially vulnerable. Lucy Connolly placed herself in this exceptional category in an attempt to mitigate her crime and reduce her sentence. It was not successful. So when I told Smart_Cooky she had had the special report done and rejected I was absolutely right. You asked for a citation of any such report and you seemed to think it was a bog standard one for some reason. I gave you the citation and instead of understanding what the issue was about, you went on to claim everybody who pleaded 'guilty' had one done and claimed no social workers could possibly be involved when probation officers are classed as social workers.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Do you have any evidence that a special report, capitalised or otherwise, was ordered in this case?
Click to expand...
Yes because unlike yourself I read it in the news at the time and unlike yourself I remembered the grounds for appeal and why it is simply not correct to say the conviction was anything to do with 'freedom of speech'. I get that you are unaware of it but your being unaware does not ipso facto follow that I must be, too.
 
Vixen said:
The Sentencing Act you refer to describes legal requirements. It then lists the EXCEPTIONS [as to when these can be disregarded as not needed] and it is this section which refers to persons under 18, persons between 18 and 25 and persons deemed potentially vulnerable.
Click to expand...
That's still just about the usual pre-sentence reports.
Vixen said:
Lucy Connolly placed herself in this exceptional category in an attempt to mitigate her crime and reduce her sentence. It was not successful. So when I told Smart_Cooky she had had the special report done and rejected I was absolutely right.
Click to expand...
You told smartcooky that the judge ordered the special report. There is no evidence that the defence ordered any report at the pre-trial or pre-sentencing stage other than a psychiatric report that was not used, and you have assured us that the "Special Report" was "nothing to do with psychiatric evidence".
Vixen said:
You asked for a citation of any such report and you seemed to think it was a bog standard one for some reason. I gave you the citation and instead of understanding what the issue was about, you went on to claim everybody who pleaded 'guilty' had one done and claimed no social workers could possibly be involved when probation officers are classed as social workers.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that a special report was ordered by the judge?
 
Vixen said:
Do you have any evidence that a special report, capitalised or otherwise, was ordered in this case?
Click to expand...
Yes because unlike yourself I read it in the news at the time and unlike yourself I remembered the grounds for appeal and why it is simply not correct to say the conviction was anything to do with 'freedom of speech'. I get that you are unaware of it but your being unaware does not ipso facto follow that I must be, too.
Click to expand...
Then why don't you present it?
 
Mojo said:
That's still just about the usual pre-sentence reports.

You told smartcooky that the judge ordered the special report. There is no evidence that the defence ordered any report at the pre-trial or pre-sentencing stage other than a psychiatric report that was not used, and you have assured us that the "Special Report" was "nothing to do with psychiatric evidence".

Do you have any evidence that a special report was ordered by the judge?
Click to expand...


Please read the following carefully:


"Connolly’s other ground of appeal—her personal mitigation—seemed more promising. She had herself suffered a dreadful tragedy involving her own child, and she believed that the sentencing judge should have had more regard to this in mitigation. Perhaps had she focused on this one ground rather than making inaccurate claims about her legal advice the appeal, judges would have been more sympathetic.


But the problem with this personal mitigation was, in the appeal court’s view, that it was hard to connect with the text of the tweet sent. As the appeal judgment states “she did not post a message of support and sympathy to the victims of the Southport attack and the bereaved. Nor, we would add, did she post a message of hostility confined to the perpetrator of the Southport attack. She chose instead to incite serious violence against large numbers of persons. " PROSPECT

Please read the legal analysis of her case and make a serious attempt to try to understand why her appeal failed.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Please read the following carefully:


"Connolly’s other ground of appeal—her personal mitigation—seemed more promising. She had herself suffered a dreadful tragedy involving her own child, and she believed that the sentencing judge should have had more regard to this in mitigation. Perhaps had she focused on this one ground rather than making inaccurate claims about her legal advice the appeal, judges would have been more sympathetic.


But the problem with this personal mitigation was, in the appeal court’s view, that it was hard to connect with the text of the tweet sent. As the appeal judgment states “she did not post a message of support and sympathy to the victims of the Southport attack and the bereaved. Nor, we would add, did she post a message of hostility confined to the perpetrator of the Southport attack. She chose instead to incite serious violence against large numbers of persons. " PROSPECT

Please read the legal analysis of her case and make a serious attempt to try to understand why her appeal failed.
Click to expand...
Did you read it carefully? It says nothing about a special report.
 
Mojo said:
Did you read it carefully? It says nothing about a special report.
Click to expand...
I am guessing you also did not know she tweeted she was going to 'play the mental health card'...? Perhaps ask yourself how it was possible for her to appeal that the judge didn't take this into consideration more if there if it did not come up in the first place. Another chap who was able to show clinical depression got a much lower sentence than she did on the exact same charges [ed]. Question for you to reflect on: how did he manage to prove he had clinical depression and get a lesser charge? :unsure:
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am guessing you also did not know she tweeted she was going to 'play the mental health card'...? Perhaps ask yourself how it was possible for her to appeal that the judge didn't take this into consideration more if there if it did not come up in the first place. Another chap who was able to show clinical depression got a much lower sentence than she did on the exact same charges and he actually went out to riot. Question for you to reflect on: how did he manage to prove he had clinical depression and get a lesser charge? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that the judge ordered a "special report"?
 
Vixen said:
I gave you the citation.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't. The only reports you have provided evidence for, even indirectly, are the usual pre-sentence report, a 2012 psychiatric report, and a further psychiatric report, obtained by the defence before sentencing, that was not used "because it did not assist the applicant", according to the Court of Appeal.

Do you have any evidence that the judge ordered a "special report"?
 
Mojo said:
No, you didn't. The only reports you have provided evidence for, even indirectly, are the usual pre-sentence report, a 2012 psychiatric report, and a further psychiatric report, obtained by the defence before sentencing, that was not used "because it did not assist the applicant", according to the Court of Appeal.

Do you have any evidence that the judge ordered a "special report"?
Click to expand...
You have been told Connolly claimed special mitigation because of her own bereavement of a child. The reports provided by the probation officers/doctors/ psychiatrists, etcetera are confidential and not available to the public under GDPR so it is not reasonable for you to demand these be produced. Suffice to say Connolly herself and her husband brought it up themselves outside court, about how their kid died of dehydration thanks to Northampton hospitals [IIRC] and this claim also constituted her grounds for appeal. It is not reasonable for you to claim this report into her emotional state over her bereavement was never ordered by Judge Lucking, KC.
 
Vixen said:
You have been told Connolly claimed special mitigation because of her own bereavement of a child. The reports provided by the probation officers/doctors/ psychiatrists, etcetera are confidtnetial and not available to the public under GDPR so it is not reasonable for you to demand these be produced. Suffice to say Connolly herself and her husband brought it up themselves outside court, about how their kid died of dehydration thanks to Northampton hospitals [IIRC] and this claim also constituted her grounds for appeal. It is not reasonable for you to claim this report into her emotional state over her bereavement was never ordered by Judge Lucking, KC.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that the judge ordered a "special report"?

ETA: I am not asking for the report to be produced, I am just asking for evidence that it existed. For example, the CA judgment mentions the pre-sentence report and the two psychiatric reports. If there had been a "special report" ordered by the judge and relied upon by the defence at appeal, this would have been mentioned in the appeal court's judgment. There is no mention of it there.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Do you have any evidence that the judge ordered a "special report"?

ETA: I am not asking for the report to be produced, I am just asking for evidence that it existed. For example, the CA judgment mentions the pre-sentence report and the two psychiatric reports. If there had been a "special report" ordered by the judge and relied upon by the defence at appeal, this would have been mentioned in the appeal court's judgment. There is no mention of it there.
Click to expand...
Who else do you think instigated the 'bereaved mother' mitigation if not Connolly herself, and as indicated by her husband outside the court? How would a judge know to ask for a report for something that happened fourteen years earlier unless someone raised it as an issue for the court to consider in its PSR? The only way to do it - other than 'because of age' is to claim the 'vulnerability' slot. Hence, 'special'. Whilst it is a horrible thing to have happened to Connolly, clearly the court did not consider it relevant to her crime. I am sorry this has come as a surprise to you but it is hardly my fault you didn't know about it.
 
Here's Judge Inman's sentencing comment re the mental health issue:

9. You have had tragedy in your own life with the loss of your very young child some years ago. I have read the psychiatric report from some twelve years ago as to the psychiatric difficulties you then suffered. 20. I accept that you still very keenly feel that loss. 21. There is no recent psychiatric evidence and whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred. There is no evidence of any mental disorder having any material affect on you committing this offence. Rex -v- Lucy Connolly His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC Recorder of Birmingham Sentencing Remarks
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Who else do you think instigated the 'bereaved mother' mitigation if not Connolly herself, and as indicated by her husband outside the court? How would a judge know to ask for a report for something that happened fourteen years earlier unless someone raised it as an issue for the court to consider in its PSR? The only way to do it - other than 'because of age' is to claim the 'vulnerability' slot. Hence, 'special'. Whilst it is a horrible thing to have happened to Connolly, clearly the court did not consider it relevant to her crime. I am sorry this has come as a surprise to you but it is hardly my fault you didn't know about it.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Here's Judge Inman's sentencing comment re the mental health issue:
9. You have had tragedy in your own life with the loss of your very young child some years ago. I have read the psychiatric report from some twelve years ago as to the psychiatric difficulties you then suffered. 20. I accept that you still very keenly feel that loss. 21. There is no recent psychiatric evidence and whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred. There is no evidence of any mental disorder having any material affect on you committing this offence. Rex -v- Lucy Connolly His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC Recorder of Birmingham Sentencing Remarks
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How could the judge have ordered a psychiatric report a dozen years before the crime was even committed? In England and Wales, judges are required to follow not only legislation (whether or not they "bother with" it) but also the laws of thermodynamics. In any case, you have assured us that the "special report" is "nothing to do with psychiatric evidence".

Where is your evidence that any of the judges involved in the case ordered a "Special Report", prepared by social workers?
 
Mojo said:
How could the judge have ordered a psychiatric report a dozen years before the crime was even committed? In England and Wales, judges are required to follow not only legislation (whether or not they "bother with" it) but also the laws of thermodynamics. In any case, you have assured us that the "special report" is "nothing to do with psychiatric evidence".

Where is your evidence that any of the judges involved in the case ordered a "Special Report", prepared by social workers?
Click to expand...
Stop playing semantics. Of course the report written twelve years ago cannot have been written in 2024. I am not sure you understand how the justice system works. Here Holroyde KC explains the reasoning for rejecting Connolly's appeal on the special issue ground of her past bereavement:


24. The judge was assisted by a pre-sentence report (“PSR”). This referred to the very sad fact that in 2011 the applicant’s son, then aged just 19 months, had died in circumstances which had given rise to complaints of negligence against the medical practitioners who had treated the child. The death of the child had affected the applicant’s mental health, with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The author of the PSR recorded that the applicant had explained that the events in Southport had brought back memories and emotions relating to her own loss, and had said that she acted out of a desire to protect her own and others’ children. The PSR also noted that the applicant, when questioned by the author, had denied that her tweet had any racist undertones or could incite hatred or violence, and had downplayed her behaviour. The author assessed the applicant as having failed sufficiently to consider the consequences of her actions, particularly in the context of the influence of social media and her underlying racist attitudes. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BIRMINGHAM The Recorder of Birmingham, HH Judge Inman KC 34NA0759424
Click to expand...

[Bear in mind there are no written reasons for convictions in a criminal trial.] This 'author' - we are not told their status but likely a social worker/probation officer - sets out Connolly's claims about her emotions as of the time of her crime. Holroyd rejects the appeal on this point of law on the grounds that Judge Inman, KC, at the sentencing trial did deal with the specific claim of mitigation by way of past bereavement PTSD being triggered. Inman also gave specific detailed reasoning for rejecting this claim. This tells you that it was a special pleading or Inman would not have mentioned it. A judge can only decide on what has been pleaded. As Inman, KC did make a decision on that one specific pleading, Holroyde judged that Inman, KC., did deal with the case correctly and as per legal protocol. Had Inman KC., completely skipped the issue in his sentencing remarks, then it would indicate it was either (a) never pleaded as a specific mitigation, or (b) he had failed in his legal duty and therefore, the appeal would have been upheld. Because the appeal on this specific ground was rejected, it informs us it was specifically pleaded, and indeed, it was appealed against on a point of law that Inman, KC., had not given the pleading sufficient consideration. Holroyde decreed Inman did directly deal with it and that his reasoning was adequate within the bounds of what a judge is allowed to decide (the criteria being it must be reasonable and within the bounds of what any reasonable judge is allowed to decide, even if another judge might have decided differently).

You can keep pretending this is to do with semantics and whether or not probation officers can be classed as social workers - who cares? - the fact remains I noted at the time of the 'Guilty' plea that the judge had ordered (colloquially) a special report into Connolly's expressed mitigation claim as part of and specific to the PSR. Your claim it didn't happen is patently incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
[Bear in mind there are no written reasons for convictions in a criminal trial.] This 'author' - we are not told their status but likely a social worker/probation officer - sets out Connolly's claims about her emotions as of the time of her crime.
Click to expand...
The 'author' referred to is explicitly described as the author of the PSR, not of any "Special Report"

Do you have any evidence that any of the judges in the case ordered a "special report"?

Also, please can you explain why you capitalised 'Special Report'?

[edited to fix typo]
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Sentencing Act you refer to describes legal requirements. It then lists the EXCEPTIONS [as to when these can be disregarded as a mandatory PSR not needed] and it is this section which refers to persons under 18, persons between 18 and 25 and persons deemed potentially vulnerable.
Click to expand...
Nope, it doesn't say anything about persons between 28 and 25, or persons deemed potentially vulnerable. It just sets out requirements relating to PSRs for people over and under 18.
 
@Vixen, you seem to have lost track of the conversation. You posted this:
Vixen said:
Absolute rubbish. The judge ordered a Special Report*, which means social workers looked at every possible mitigating factor.

*Usually called for when the defendant is deemed a potentially vulnerable person (for example, a mother with very young children).
Click to expand...

And this:
Vixen said:
It was at the pre-trial stage. Nothing to do with psychiatric evidence.
Click to expand...

These are the claims you are being asked to support.

HTH.
 
Darat said:
Just a thought: if it was pre-trial why would the judge be involved?
Click to expand...
Dunno how it is in the UK, but in the US the trial is a culmination of a series of judicial proceedings. A judge is involved from the very beginning, from the initial arraignment all the way to trial and sentencing.

Who presides over pretrial court proceedings in the UK? An effigy of Guy Fawkes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom