written by The Justice of the Peace on the 27th June 2018 at 10:15
Sourcing news which might be of interest to magistrates especially when returning to the keyboard after a time away rarely fails to surprise. But surprise doesn`t do justice IMHO to the man who was jailed for assuming the identity of a registered runner at the London Marathon. He was convicted of *fraud by false representation; an either way offence. The report is available here. It would seem that the sentence of four months custody was based on the court`s maximum with one third discount for a guilty plea. It is not unlikely that sentencing for the other offences was concurrent. My question is just how on earth could a lay bench justify in these times such a heavy sentence. Of course we know nothing about any previous convictions he might have had but considering that only about 4% of those sentenced at the lower court receive a custodial sentence this outcome seems arbitrary. I would opine that if his representative did not immediately file an appeal against sentence there and then she failed in her professional duty. About a half of such appeals succeed.
*Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
- made a false representation
- knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
- with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
Originally posted at https://thejusticeofthepeaceblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/running-fra...