It is easier to get sent to prison in England for contempt of court than for assaulting a fellow human being. I don’t mean that it is easier to prove. I mean that once proven, contempt of court is more likely to result in imprisonment than assault – even a gang assault that leaves one’s victim seriously injured.

In the case to which I refer, a tribunal of arrogant bullies – sorry judges – has sentenced a juror by the name of Theodora Dallas to six months imprisonment for carrying out internet research at home on the defendant in at a criminal trial on which she was sitting. The tribunal, consisting of Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Openshaw and the risibly named Lord Judge, also denied their victim – sorry the convicted party – leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Of course she can apply directly to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. But the fact that the judge’s denied her this right – in a case that obviously has implications that require the Supreme Court’s attention, shows that they are more concerned with flexing their muscles than with the administration of justice.

Now first of all – lest any criminals or their friends accuse me of missing the point – let me stress that checking out a defendant online IS contempt of court and that the jurors were all warned not to. And contempt of court can draw a custodial sentence. But this was a first offence and we are always told – by our judges no less – that first-time offenders should be treated with leniency. At least that is what we are told when they have committed assault or affray or even ABH.

Yet apparently those offences are not as serious, in the eyes of our esteemed judiciary, as checking out an accused online. It seems that the same judges who let violent criminals off with non-custodial sentences and who water down the sentences of even the most serious violent offenders, choose to get tough on a woman who committed contempt of court. In other words, beat the crap out of a private citizen by all means but don’t dare ruffle the feathers of the judiciary.

Unfortunately for their Lordships, ruffling the feathers of judges is what I do. So let’s consider the judges who reached this decision.

Only a week ago, Lady Justice Hallett reduced the prison sentence of Viktor Akulic who had raped a woman, knocked her to the ground and stamped on her head. Then when the woman reported the attack to the police, Akulic went round to her home and threatened to kill her. Akulic had already spent half his adult life in prison for other offences, including the rape of a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL. And Lady Justice Hallett KNEW ALL OF THIS. Yet although it would be obvious to all but a mental defective that Viktor Akulic WILL re-offend as soon as he gets the chance, Lady Justice Hallett and her co-conspirators – sorry judges – reduced his sentence from a minimum of eight-and-a-half years before he could apply for parole to seven.

Okay so much for Lady Justice Hallett, but what about Lord Judge? Well he’s an interesting case. In 2009 parliament finally decided to get rid of that legal dinosaur that allowed people who kill their spouses to use their spouse’s adultery or infidelity as a defence, watering down murder to manslaughter. The new law stated that “In deciding whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity IS TO BE DISREGARDED.” So although loss of control could reduce murder to manslaughter, alleged infidelity  (and it was very easy for the man’s lawyer to invent such infidelity) could no longer be used to achieve such reduction.

This reform was long overdue for many reasons, including the fact that the old law was almost invariably used by men to get off the hook for murdering their wives and almost never in those rare cases of wives murdering their husbands. But Lord Judge decided that he and his colleagues didn’t have to bother with something so trivial as the law or the will of parliament (nor indeed for the right of women not to be murdered). So he decreed – in brazen defiance of the law – that infidelity could be considered as adding to the “potency” of any other conduct which might cause a loss of self-control.

In other words, Lord Judge knowingly subverted the will of parliament and willfully deprived women of adequate protection of their right to life, by deliberately misinterpreting the law in pursuit of his nefarious, misogynistic agenda.

The Honourable Justice Openshaw on the other hand, seems to be a reasonably decent judge who does not let criminals get away with it. This might be because his own father – also a judge – was stabbed to death by a criminal whom he had sentenced to borstal for theft.

However, there is something deeply troubling in the case of Theodora Dallas. The reason that she was caught was because she told other jurors what she had found about the accused and one of them reported it to an usher. But the thing is that jurors swear an oath not to disclose anything said in the jury room and jury ushers also swear oaths not to ask the jurors any question other than have they reached a verdict and not to “suffer” that anything be disclosed to them.

So in order for Miss Dallas to have been caught, at least two other people must have breached their oaths. I’m not saying that what Miss Dallas did was right. But the fact that she was sentenced to six months for a non-violent first offence while thugs walk out of the courtroom laughing, child rapists get off early and murderous husbands get off with the lesser charge of manslaughter, suggests that there is something deeply wrong with the priorities of our much vaunted judiciary.

 

43 Responses to Hypocritical judges sentence woman to prison for “Contempt”

  • Anonymous says:

    The Court of Appeal held, convincingly, that the trial judge

     
    • dkessler says:

      You might like to finish that sentence if you have anything to say. BTW I have taken out your spam links.

       
  • H says:

    As I said, I don’t know for certain who any of the above posters are. I might know them personally, we might even share an IP address, but the names above don’t give me enough indication. Besides, who’s to say that anyone here is using their real name?

    I’ll say it again though; this is the only alias I’ve ever posted on any of your blogs. I have my faults, like any human; I can be a stubborn bastard when I feel like it, and when wronged I can show a want for revenge that I’d hate to see in anyone else. But I’m not a liar. I have no need to use more than one alias on a message board, and this place certainly doesn’t warrant me breaking this rule.

    As for the news story, so far I’ve read little into it to be honest. Due to my last dealings with the press, and knowing how the most basic of facts can be mis-represented, I hold a considerably more open opinion on what might have happened, as opposed to just reading a sensationalist story and then bubbling over like a saucepan. I’ll look at getting a moment to spare later, and see what I can determine. If it warrants a response, you’ll see it here.

     
    • dkessler says:

      I’ve published this without comment. Anything further in this thread – by anyone – should be on the original topic if it is to be published.

       
  • John Kane says:

    You say about your style of expreesion, EXPRESS THIS As I am the partner of Theodora Dallas I don’t find it amusing at all and yes Lisa the petition is doing great I cant thank these people enough, and I will keep pushing and pushing,
    I am proud of Dora stand proud sweetheart.

     
    • dkessler says:

      Hi John,
      I am not sure who you are responding to here. I fully support Theodora and condemn the arrogant judges who sentenced her. That is why I wrote the article.

      What I found amusing was not the injustice that was done to Theodora but the behaviour of one of the commentators here who is using multiple identities and is trying to hijack this thread because he doesn’t like what I said in an earlier article about his friends who beat up an innocent man.

      As far as Theodora is concerned, I support her and condemn the judges, as you can see from the original article above.

       
  • H says:

    I’d just like to throw something in here.

    This post right here is the first time I’ve commented on this particular article. I’ve only just decided to see if anything new has been added with regard to comments on the previous posting, and lo and behold, this article seems to have appeared. And there are other people ‘hijacking’ what would otherwise be another rant at a news article. Admit it, we’ve made it interesting =)

    I’m not Trev. Nor Zach, nor Toni, nor Hall.
    I’m ‘H’, and that’s all you need to know. I’d wager I might know one or two of the people who have posted in your blog over this past week or two, but do I know them for certain? No.

     
    • dkessler says:

      I am not going to allow this hijacking of the thread to continue as it is unfair to Theodora. If you have anything to say about Theordora Dallas, feel free to say it (subject to the rules of politeness and decorum).

      I have already explained about the identical IP addresses and what this means and none of your identities have been able to come up with an explanation as to why Trev, gts and H used the same IP address (or why H and Zach Roberts also used a common IP address). If you have one, send it to the other thread about the yobs who beat up an innocent man.

       
  • It seems to me that the lesson to be learnt from this, (which, I am sure, has already been understood by most potential jurors) is not “don’t research the case on the Internet”. It is “research all you like – but keep your mouth shut about it”.

     
  • I wonder WHY Trev or whatever his real name is (probably none of the aliases he’s used) is so very angry about what you wrote. Food for thought there…

     
  • Trev says:

    What have you got me “banged to rights” doing?

     
    • dkessler says:

      Do you have a serious comprehension problem? What has been the subject matter of our argument? It sure as heck hasn’t been the Theodora Dallas case or the behaviour of the judges, because despite having posted your comment on this blog, you haven’t said anything of substance about the case. All you’ve done is allude to the previous blog about your friends.

      What I’ve got you bang to rights doing is engaging in sock-puppetry. You slipped up with your “little fishy” reminder when you sent the message from the same IP address as one of H‘s (which was also the one that gts used). As I’ve explained – ad nauseum – dynamic IP addresses may be assigned at random, but the chances of two particular people being assigned the same one are four billion to one. Now of course it happens all the time – with random people – but two people commenting on consecutive blogs, using similar expressions, making similar comments (even confusing the subject matter of the two blogs)! And the fact that you also knew that I had edited a message, which I did only with the message from gts, clinches it.

      As Goldfinger put it: “In Chicago we have a saying Mr Bond, ‘once it’s happenstance, twice its coincidence, the third time it’s enemy action.'”

       
  • Trev says:

    Ip address’s in domestic use are not static. Only business use static ones as they are needed for proper p2p use, and router connections. So you will find it difficult to pin it down, just like me. LMAO

     
    • dkessler says:

      The statistical likelihood of two different people writing to the same blog at the same time (out of only a handful of purported commentators) being randomly assigned the same dynamic IP address is extremely small.

      And what you said about me editing comments was also a giveaway.

      Why don’t you just admit it. You know I’ve got you bang to rights – and so does anyone who knows how the internet works.

       
  • Toni says:

    Shock horror there might be more than one person using the same internet connection that doesn’t agree with your views!

     
    • dkessler says:

      With the same IP address?

      Also, please stick to on-topic posting. If you have anything to say about this particular blog (about Theodora Dallas) please feel free to say so.

       
  • Lisa says:

    Hey,
    I just wanted to say I really enjoyed reading this and couldn’t agree more! I’ve read on the news today that her appeal to the Supreme Court has been denied and I was quite appalled. There’s a petition online in her support and I was wondering if you could help broadcast it to a wider audience.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/minister-of-justice-justice-for-theodora-dallas-2

     
    • dkessler says:

      Happy to do so. Hopefully we can get the Home Secretary to respond to public pressure. It is a pity that this thread has been hijacked by people who are still angry about my last blog.

       
      • Lisa says:

        Thank you so much for your support! The more people hear about this, the better! People ranting about in the comments section certainly makes this piece of art no less valid!

         
  • Trev says:

    Talk about pot calling kettle black. I think you have an identity crisis. David Kesstler or adam palmer. Make your mind up. You really cant believe that more than one person can reply to you. Trev is me. H is someone else that used the fish ref. I merely “copied and paste the bit because you failed to remember why i used it. You also edit replies to suit yourself instead of posting the whole comment. This I do know! Our locations bare no relevance to what is said in replies. And im certain that im not zach either. Get all the facts right befor you mount your rant. As for gts, thats not me either. So, who am i?

     
    • dkessler says:

      I said before that this is getting tiresome, but actually it is becoming rather amusing.

      1) It is perfectly natural for a writer to write under different names when he writes in a different genre to his usual.

      2) When you send in a comment I can see the IP address from my Admin dashboard. This can be either static or dynamic. Whilst different people can at different times have the same dynamic IP address, the likelihood of two different people writing similarly styled negative comments in reply to a particular pair of blogs at a particular time having the same IP address is over four billion to one. The fact that you used the “little fishy” comment is merely the icing on the cake.

      3) The comments from H came from two IP addresses. One of these (ending in 203) was the same IP address of the message in which you wrote (as Trev): “hey dk. tis me again. the little fish thing… a little reminder..” The reference to “little fishy” proves nothing, but the identical IP address proves beyond reasonable doubt that you and H are the same – or at least that you and H share a computer, router or modem.

      4) That same IP address (i.e. the one ending in 203) was also the IP address used by gts.

      5) You write “You also edit replies to suit yourself instead of posting the whole comment. This I do know!” That is another dead giveaway. Because apart from a couple of spelling errors of others that I corrected, the only comment that I edited (and outrageously so, I admit) was the one made gts. Given the inflammatory nature of the comment (and you know EXACTLY what I’m talking about) I think you can well understand why I butchered it in a way that took the mickey. By all means rant and rave about my views – and feel free to accuse me of being an “idiot” or a “moron” or any other such words. But refrain from the more inflammatory comments. Contra to what some of the tabloids did, I did NOT criticize your friends because of their appearance, or draw any inferences about them because of their looks – only their behaviour.

      6) Re Zach Roberts, given that Mr Roberts’ IP was the other of the two IPs that H’s comments came from (ending 165), and given further that I was able to match the IP address ending in 203 (also used by H) to your comment (as Trev) quoting the “little fishy” reference, it follows that H, gps, Trev and Zach Roberts are all the same person engaging in a little bit of sock-puppetry – Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

      7) Need I say anything about “bare relevance”?

       
  • Toni says:

    It’s news to me that I live in Manchester.

     
    • dkessler says:

      Is it also news to you that you share an IP address with “Hall”?

      You may not live in Manchester but you are using a Manchester based exchange for your internet.

       
  • Trev says:

    The name is Trevor, Trev to my close friends. Not “H”. H is unconnected to me or anyone i know. Anyway im bored now and cba. Lmao!

     
    • dkessler says:

      1) You used the name Trev, so you can hardly complain about being addressed or referred to as such.

      2) You seem to be suffering from an identity crisis. You repeated the “little fishy” and “swim on” comments in your Trev guise that you originally used in your “H” guise, specifically to draw attention to the fact that you are one and the same.

      3) Before you say that you were quoting some one else, let me just explain that you slipped up and sent that message from the same location as the second two of your four messages in your H guise (Your Wolverhampton based BT account as opposed to your 02 account.)

      3) You also sent the message in the “gts” Id from that same account.

      4) I also noticed that “Hall” and “Toni” are the same person (living in Manchester where the attack on Joseph O’Reilly took place).

      5) You are also Zach Roberts 😉

       
  • Vic says:

    This is just brilliant!! Please don’t stop bitching at eachother as this is about the most amusing thing I have read in a very long time. I feel DK makes some very valid points and as far as grammar & spelling are concerned, at least he’s not using so-called ‘text speak’ or foul language!! Keep up the good work 🙂

     
  • trev says:

    hey dk. tis me again. the little fish thing… a little reminder..

    You would think that for someone who writes fiction involving legal battles, police investigations and the like would have paid some degree of attention to the actual details of this case. Instead you’ve bitten the bait dangled so temptingly in front of you by the press. Now swim on little fishy, swim on.

    Reply
    dkessler says:
    January 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    just a small snippet to show where the “fishy thing is from. the article re the “thugs” as is written.
    thanks for withdrawing the image. it wasn`t yours to use and it wasn`t the newspapers property in the first place where you acquired it from either.

    I may rant a bit but I certainly dont rave.

    On the point of what you say above…
    I express my facts first and then my conclusions. What the substance of what you have to say on this blog (as opposed to the previous one)? That you think that Googling a juror is worse than assault? That I am unfair to the judiciary? Or just that you don’t like my style of expression?

    do you really express the facts or do you merely take what the press has said and reproduce it on here as though you know all about it.

    I`ll have more to say soon on this matter and more later.

     
    • dkessler says:

      I knew that you were quoting your own comment from your earlier blog. Hence my comment that: “You said in in your first comment with you H ID, but not sure what you were on about there either.” That was why I also wrote “I’m not sure what all this talk about swimming and “little fishy” is about – unless you’re just trying to emphasize your own sock-puppetry.” In other words, I was aware that you were quoting yourself, but wasn’t sure why you introduced the fish analogy to begin with. I had recently written (in a private message) something about the line “you shall have some fishy on a little dishy” (from the song Dance to your daddy), so I was wondering if you were reading my mail?

      I do take facts from the press, when appropriate. But I check many sources to verify them. And then I express my conclusions. I do original research for my novels, but for my blog I rely on multiple press sources. I avoid conspiracy sites, but give qualified trust to the mainstream press.

      I note that when all is done and dusted, it was with my interpretation that you took issue, not the underlying facts. And your interpretation of your friends’ behaviour sounded more like an excuse than a plausible explanation. If they really felt that their actions had been misinterpreted by the press, they could have issued a dignified statement explaining themselves.

       
  • Toni says:

    No I don’t think Googling a juror is worse than assault, but you or I there when the picture of the young man making a rude gesture was taken? No we weren’t so how can we possibly know why he was making that gesture. I for one have in the past few years been put in some very difficult situations to which I could possibly have reacted in the same way, but being more mature and worldly-wise restrained myself.

    May I also suggest that you read every single comment that has been made on the newspaper articles as you may find some very interesting information there.

     
  • Toni says:

    Aren’t you ranting and raving?

    That is exactly how it appears to the us mere mortals.

     
    • dkessler says:

      I express my facts first and then my conclusions. What the substance of what you have to say on this blog (as opposed to the previous one)? That you think that Googling a juror is worse than assault? That I am unfair to the judiciary? Or just that you don’t like my style of expression?

       
  • Trev says:

    Hey dk. Re spelling and “ref deliberate and put their to test”! The correct spelling is there, not their. At least give me a proper challenge! Ref your money paid for images, maybe you should question the legal side of their ownership. Handy hints are free,dk. Hey dk. Re spelling and “ref deliberate and put their to test”! The correct spelling is there, not their. At least give me a proper challenge! Ref your money paid for images, maybe you should question the legal side of their ownership. Handy hints are free,dk. Ref swim and fish read your own blog or do you have the memory of a goldfish?

     
    • dkessler says:

      I’d already corrected the spelling by the time your reply came in. And you seem to be rather repetitious. I’ve pulled one picture, pending verification. Still not sure what you’re on about with the little fishy. You said in in your first comment with you H ID, but not sure what you were on about there either.

       
  • Toni says:

    Unless you know Trev personally how can you comment on his intelligence? Some of the most intelligent people have problems spelling. Myself being one of them but I endeavour to ensure my grammar is correct.

    I expect that as is the norm your books are proof read by a professiona before publishing.

    I have read both of your recent blogs and they leave a lot to be desired.

     
    • dkessler says:

      My comment on his intelligence was based on the fact that he accused me of ranting and raving, whilst his own comment was all form and no substance.

       
    • Toni, what exactly is a “professiona”? Is that anything like a “fashionista”?

      I, too, have read David’s two recent blogs. You say they leave a lot to be desired. Would you care to elaborate? What, precisely, would you desire that he should add?

       
  • Trev says:

    The spelling was deliberate to see if could spot it. Well done little fish. Btw, (txt spk) How is the swimming? Ref other rant you made, where did you aquire the images that you added to pad out the article? I would hazard a guess at the tabloid press. Did you have the rights to publish all the images or are you now infringing copyright held by others? Back to you little fishy!

     
    • dkessler says:

      I’m not sure what all this talk about swimming and “little fishy” is about – unless you’re just trying to emphasize your own sock-puppetry.

      Amusing answer re the spelling error. You’d be a very good politician. Maybe I should have said said the grammatical errors were deliberate and put there to test your perspicacity. Re copyright over pictures I use , I have paid over £700 in the last year alone for rights to use various pictures. I am not going to give you a detailed breakdown, but I keep all my invoices for seven years at least to show parties who have a legitimate interest.

       
    • Trev, that should be “acquire”, not ‘aquire”. Or are you going to claim that too, was deliberate?

      “The spelling was deliberate to see if could spot it.” – to see if who could spot it? I certainly did.

       
  • Trev says:

    Have you got nothing else to do apart from rant on with a childish argument that tells what a lonely man you must be? Your grammer in the opening statement gives the impression that you just sit and type mindless drivel, and dont check it through. If you have time to research everyone and write it up as your own, you clearly need to get out more.

     
    • dkessler says:

      You are being awfully silly Trev. I am not the first person to write about criminal cases and their impact on society. Nor will I be the last. It does not actually take much time to conduct research through the internet 😉 You on the other hand seem to find the time to troll through the internet in search of people you disagree with – but then lack the intelligence to say in coherent terms why you disagree with them.

      Regarding my “grammer in the opening statement” let’s make a deal: you don’t criticize my grammar and I won’t criticize your spelling.