>> It seems the Judge... as the initial jury... was somewhat taken in by claims of
>> previous good character and distractions of a busy job. I'd have taken far less account
>> of that. Many folks have busy jobs and pressured lives... no excuse.
I assume you were not in the public gallery for both trials.............
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith sat through her trial and her evidence. He's an experienced High Court Judge and, with no skin in this game, I'd be pretty confident he's not easily 'taken in'.
I don't know what history was with respect to her selection for Peterborough for 2017 GE but it's probable she was selected in a rush after the PM announced 'the snap'. A seat held by the Conservatives since 2015 was not likely to be treated as winnable when Labour was 15%+ behind in the polls. She had the characteristic some of the 1997 intake; an accidental MP. It's thus not surprising that 6 weeks after the election she was in a chaotic situation; read the account of any new MP. More than usual busy job/pressured life scenario.
She'd also had a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis.
When she sent the NIP home her brother appears to have accepted he was the driver. The Judge finds she was not party to a conspiracy until September and it was January 18 before she really dug herself into a hole.
It's a considered and rational sentence. I don't think there's any ground to refer to Attorney General for leniency.
Will be interested to see how an appeal might be pleaded though......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 29 Jan 19 at 19:21
|