353
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 4 points 16 hours ago

From the judgement:

Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires that the court treats your offending’s terrorist connection as an aggravating factor. That means it increases the seriousness of the offence

I will impose the shortest custodial term that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
I hope that this case is revisited, and the sentences reduced, because there is an element of scapegoating apparent, which is not just.

[-] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 13 hours ago

That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.

There's no such thing as "severity of the sentence". They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.

On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.

As with "severity of the sentence" you don't know what you're talking about. That's not how any of it works.

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I wasn't using legal language. By "the severity of the sentence", I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.

They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.

A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:

I will impose the shortest custodial term that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, taking account of aggravating and mitigating features.

Then, your ad hominem response "you don't know what you're talking about" renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I'd advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.

[-] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 3 points 10 hours ago

You're right. They did add 2 years to the sentence because of various aggravating factors, terrorist connected being one of them. Good to know.

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
353 points (100.0% liked)

World News

57292 readers
1277 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS