Mitigating factors
Notifications OFF
I've come across this term a few times, I'm worried that my oh may use my disability as a mitigating factor when in reality he offered no extra physical or emotional support, no extra childcare, no financial changes/pressures etc. (He did take some days off when I was very poorly to take the kids to school) . In fact my disability has massively improved since he has left!
What are peoples experiences of mitigating factors and any impact on sentencing?
*just to add, I just don't want the 'blame' of my disability overshadowing over factors or be a 'easy get out clause', he has immediately engaged with other services which is positive too.
What are peoples experiences of mitigating factors and any impact on sentencing?
*just to add, I just don't want the 'blame' of my disability overshadowing over factors or be a 'easy get out clause', he has immediately engaged with other services which is positive too.
I don't think we ever really know what the Judge takes into account. In my persons case, the judge made reference on more than one occasion of the fact that he had engaged with LFF and had a character reference from his therapist. He seemed more interested in the fact that my person had taken active steps to reduce his risk of reoffending than anything the solicitor had to add.
Thank you for sharing, my oh immediately engaged with Lucy faithwell and another service/therapist which shows good intentions.
Does anyone know if the judge takes into account things like losing a job they've done for 35 years and never being allowed to work in that field again because they've been added to the barred list ?
Yes my person has done the modules and sought help from a therapist but had to stop that because of finances. He was dismissed from his job so what are you supposed to do then x
I am disabled and my ex was my carer. It made no difference at all. X
Need help, not sure what you mean. If your person has been or about to be convicted and they work with children or vulnerable adults, they will usually lose their job and won't be able to work in that field again. It happened to my person but I'm glad he lost his job. I dread to think how many others are working in these settings that COULD pose a risk.
He was arrested and Rui. Within a few months he was added to the barred list and was unable to do his job of 30 years. Obviously he won't ever be able to do this job again.
My question was will the fact he has been barred and can't work in his field have an impact on sentencing (will it be a mitigating circumstance anc be taken into account) ? It is an extra punishment.
My question was will the fact he has been barred and can't work in his field have an impact on sentencing (will it be a mitigating circumstance anc be taken into account) ? It is an extra punishment.
Needhelp
If anything it's aggravating circumstances as he was obviously in a position of trust to need a DBS. It says so on sentencing guidelines that abuse of trust is aggravating unfortunately.
If anything it's aggravating circumstances as he was obviously in a position of trust to need a DBS. It says so on sentencing guidelines that abuse of trust is aggravating unfortunately.
His offences were communication and downloading images. Nothing was against anyone known to him so I don't see why there would be ang abuse of trust etc.
Abuse of trust would only apply if the person used their position in some way to gain an advantage. If it was communication with a stranger and they didn't mention their role during the conversation, then its hard to see how that would apply here.
But communication cases are tricky, because every word matters. If the prosecution can find one phrase or word that makes the person look bad, they will use it.
When it comes to mitigation, the most common things that judges want to see are remorse and any attempts at rehabilitation. A person cannot control things like whether they lose their job, but if they had a long career at a particular place and they can get a character reference from someone who they worked for, then that would count as evidence of previous good character, which is a mitigating factor.
On the other issue of caring responsibilities, that does become relevant if a custodial sentence is being considered. The judge would take into account the fact that sending someone to prison might leave another person in hardship. I would expect the defence to refer to it, because it is relevant.
Other examples include when the loss of a job causes financial hardship. But that only applies if the sentence itself causes the job to be lost and if the offence is really serious, it won't stop the judge from sending them to prison.
The whole sentencing process is a balancing act. There will always be good and bad things for the judge to consider and it depends how much weight they give to each one. That's why sentencing outcomes vary so much, even though the offence is the same.
But communication cases are tricky, because every word matters. If the prosecution can find one phrase or word that makes the person look bad, they will use it.
When it comes to mitigation, the most common things that judges want to see are remorse and any attempts at rehabilitation. A person cannot control things like whether they lose their job, but if they had a long career at a particular place and they can get a character reference from someone who they worked for, then that would count as evidence of previous good character, which is a mitigating factor.
On the other issue of caring responsibilities, that does become relevant if a custodial sentence is being considered. The judge would take into account the fact that sending someone to prison might leave another person in hardship. I would expect the defence to refer to it, because it is relevant.
Other examples include when the loss of a job causes financial hardship. But that only applies if the sentence itself causes the job to be lost and if the offence is really serious, it won't stop the judge from sending them to prison.
The whole sentencing process is a balancing act. There will always be good and bad things for the judge to consider and it depends how much weight they give to each one. That's why sentencing outcomes vary so much, even though the offence is the same.
Edel2020.
My person was given a custodial on a first offence. He was of excellent character, however, he was in a position of trust but he didn't use his position in any way when he committed the crimes.
My person was given a custodial on a first offence. He was of excellent character, however, he was in a position of trust but he didn't use his position in any way when he committed the crimes.