Family and Friends Forum

Does this sentence make sense?

Notifications OFF

Ladyjane

Member since
November 2023

16 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 4:44pmReport post

My family member has autism and is being v vague about what he has actually done. He implied he had 1 conversation with a 13yr old who was a police officer acting underage.

His sentence is he is on register, kids in family not allowed to be unsupervised in his presence, 100hr community service, therapy, 18mth suspended sentence.

This is making half the family think it must have been much worse than what he us implying? Other half believe him.

It's tearing the family apart.

Would appreciate any thoughts on this sentence and whether it seems appropriate for the offence he is implying he has done?

sadso

Member since
December 2023

89 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 4:53pmReport post

hi, I'm not sure especially if none of the family was present in the court and its just been between himself and his lawyer and no press coverage, I would imagine what it would have something to do with how the conversation went online and what was actually being said in those conversations if he is telling the truth I'm not sure if there are any others ways of finding out exactly what his charge was sorry cannot be of much help but maybe someone else would have better info, and I know how frustrating it is u just want to know the truth as hard as it is x

Inthemoment

Member since
February 2023

358 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 5:07pmReport post

LadyJane that sounds like it's within the sentencing guidelines for the type of offence he has said he's committed. The conversation will have had some kind of sexual element.

You can look up sentencing guidelines onlinehttps://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/sexual-communication-with-a-child/

I'd also recommend looking at some of the resources on this website for understanding why people do this and what it means. I hope your family is able to come back together, it does take some people longer to process this type of offence than others

My husband's offence was images only (between 5 and 10 images) and he got 100 hrs and therapy and a course (iHorizon) etc too but a 3 year community order rather than a suspended sentence. He's not allowed to live at home or be unsupervised with our son. Usually sentencing is slightly harsher for communication offences

Edited Fri December 15, 2023 5:33pm

Parkerpoo1

Member since
July 2022

252 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:08pmReport post

Post deleted


Edited Thu December 21, 2023 10:08am

Distressed and pregnant

Member since
November 2020

1001 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:25pmReport post

It is within the sentencing guidelines so it does make sense. Unfortunately without being in court or having full disclosure you won't know what the charges were unless he discloses to you. There will be things put forward on both sides that will impact the judges decision, any work he has done on himself etc and support he has in place moving forward.

They changed the law relatively recently post 2020 to remove the word attempt in decoy cases so all communication cases are treated as if it was an actual child. Usually most communication cases have inciting as a charge and this usually means that sentencing is harsher per the guidelines.

My person was attempted communication with inciting of a minor and was given a 3 year community order, 100 hours and sor and SHPO for 5 years. Fortunately he doesn't have the no contact clause that it seems your family member has but this doesn't necessarily reflect the severity of the crime as his solicitor could have argued that it wasn't proportionate to his offences online. This is probably due to the solicitors lack of experience in these cases or not reading through the SHPO prior to court xxx

Ocean

Member since
September 2023

767 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:42pmReport post

As others have said, the sentence is within the sentencing guidelines for a conversation containing sexual references with a person under the age of 18 years. My person also has the restriction of no unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 18 years. It seems to be one of the standard restrictions for communication offences.
You may find it helpful to contact the LFF helpline to gain an understanding of why people offend in these ways and how you can help them in the future.

LifeRuined23

Member since
June 2023

58 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:54pmReport post

Post deleted by user


Edited Wed January 17, 2024 1:55pm

Just want an end to it

Member since
October 2023

212 posts

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 11:26pmReport post

Hi, My son's got autisum and it sounds correct. They have guildlines to follow so can't sway from that (luckly my son didn't get the suspended sentance part, which by guidlines he should of, but the judge took his age and Autisum into consideration)

Contact offence, he will have contact restictions on his SHPO

Sounds like they went light on the community hours for him, I'm seen others get more.