Family and Friends Forum

Does this sentence make sense?

Notifications OFF

Ladyjane

Member since
November 2023

16 posts

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?

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 4:44pmReport post

sadso

Member since
December 2023

126 posts

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

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 4:53pmReport post

Inthemoment

Member since
February 2023

386 posts

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

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 5:07pm
Edited Fri December 15, 2023 5:33pmReport post

Parkerpoo1

Member since
July 2022

252 posts

Post deleted


Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:08pm
Edited Thu December 21, 2023 10:08amReport post

Distressed and pregnant

Member since
November 2020

1177 posts

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

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:25pmReport post

Ocean

Member since
September 2023

933 posts

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.

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:42pmReport post

LifeRuined23

Member since
June 2023

63 posts

Post deleted by user


Posted Fri December 15, 2023 9:54pm
Edited Wed January 17, 2024 1:55pmReport post

Just want an end to it

Member since
October 2023

226 posts

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.

Posted Fri December 15, 2023 11:26pmReport post

Quick exit