He’s 19… he’s not a child. Completely absurd. He’s going to get out of prison, probably in less than 4.5 years, and attack someone else. By the looks of his previous convictions, and the escalation from the first to the second, he’ll probably kill someone this time.
I agree with you.
Legally the sentence is not based on his current age – but the age he was at the time of the offence.
I only hope that when he is considered for parole that the assessors consider whether he remains a danger to the public.
the latest verdict means that generally he just needs to behave himself in prison to get out in 4-5 years time. and on the issue of taking age into account when reducing the sentence, was the growing up factor considered in cases involving young people over 16 looting on the streets of london? doubt it
He also needs to demonstrate to the parole panel that he is no longer a danger to society (regardless of whether there is an aspect of public protection to his sentence or not) – therefore, he needs to do a little more than just behave himself inside.
it is a joke 19 he is old enough to know and realised what he has done. where is the justice?? once again homophobic crimes are not taken seriously
Sounds like he should be in broadmore getting treatment.
My concern is that he could be a serial killer in the making.
Maybe not Broadmoor but somewhere able to offer forensic psychiatric help would make sense!
This isn’t even a matter of homophobia; it is obvious that this is a dangerous individual that has seriously attacked twice, and if left to do it a third time could quite likely kill. He needs to be locked up for a very long time.
I understand that the law says that we consider his age at the time of the offence (and that all else being equal – although there is much more to consider in this case! – that the starting point for an offender under 18 would be lower than one over 18).
However, as you rightly say there is already evidence that Moaso is a repeat violent offender – so the original judge(s) were absolutely correct to consider both a starting point sentence and a public protection sentence. The repeated violence is only aggravated and exacerbated by the homophobia.
The original judge(s) choice of sentence did not say that Moaso would spend the rest of his days in prison, merely that there was an indefinite limit of his detention until it was clear that he was no longer a risk to public safety (and if that was a considerable time, then public safety demanded that he be detained for a considerable time).
I do not see how consideration of sentence based on his age at the time changes his risk.
I am sure the Judges took into account that it was ONLY gay people he attacked which is a much lesser crime!!!!!!!
Why do you believe this, Alexander?
Please demonstrate (with evidence) how you support your claims.
or is it just mindless, infantile, insecure rhetoric?
Actually. Under UK law it is a greater crime. A HATE motivated crime.
The judges clearly felt “The circumstances of the offences are very troubling indeed”. That suggests they consider this to be a serious and worrying crime rather than less serious!
Have you people never heard of Irony! ?
We have had a troll here in the past called Alexander who made similar comments – is this comment not from him?
Have you heard of correct punctuation?
Have you not heard of Grammar N@zis?
This is a smack in the face to the victim of this attack. The justice system in this country sometimes does beggar belief!
As important as the smack in the face to the victim(s), it also speaks of a criminal justice system unwilling to engage in its duty to protect the public.
……”The justice system in this country sometimes does beggar belief!” This only applies when you don’t agree with the verdict. If it were you who was in the dock you would be full of the praises.
If I was in the dock for stabbing someone, I would EXPECT to go down for a long time.
If I was in the dock for stabbing someone whilst on bail, having previously seriously assaulted someone else and having had an aggravating factor to the stabbing that it was homophobically motivated – then I would be pretty certain that I should receive a lengthy sentence. Particularly if I admitted it like Moaso.
His sentence was originally an ‘indefinite’ period.
What does that mean?
Does it mean that he could have been released after 2 years for example?
By changing it to 9 years for which he must serve a minimum of 4.5 years in custody, it could actually mean his sentence has effectively been increased?
It means that his original sentence included a public protection measure. It meant he should be detained until such a time as he no longer posed a risk to public safety. That could include an actual lifetime in prison (so 9 years is effectively a reduction).
In theory, an indefinite prison sentence could be very short, or it could be a life sentence if no decision is made after sentencing to lift the term.
Under indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP), offenders convicted of a wide range of offences are given a minimum tariff.
However, they must take courses and undergo assessments to prove they are no longer a danger to the public before they can be released. Whether the assessments are realistic is a separate argument.
Another troubling aspect of this case is that if he had not been released on bail he would not have been able to commit this offence.
Is this what used to be called “At Her Majesties Pleasure”?
Similar. There are some technical differences but they are minor.
Or even “At Her Majesty’s Pleasure”
Thank you Übergruppenfuhrer Grammatik.
(I never mentioned Goodwin!)
Obergruppenführer, surely? :-)
(And in case you’re wondering, no, I only post under one identity!)
I bet these three judges are religious: LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY DBE, MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS & MR JUSTICE BURNETT
(scroll down to bottom): http://bit.ly/IWL35K
Well … I was interested to see if there might be some link …
Lady Justice Rafferty I can not find any trace of any religious link – she has been condemned over some of her judgements by many Catholic websites and her husband presided over the case of the trial concerning the murder of Jody Dabrowski (and during sentencing he made comments that strongly supported supporting LGBT people – not that this then means his wife would feel the same but it was interesting to see that he was involved in that case).
I can find no suggestion Mr Justice Griffith Williams is religious and has been referred to in some online journals as an anti-Catholic bigot.
Regarding Iain Duncan Burnett, I can find no evidence of criticism by religious people of him nor of any allegiance.
Would be interesting to know what their religious views are though!
This kind of sentencing happens a lot, so something somewhere is a rye?
Did you mean awry? Sigh.
Does it really matter?
Even if they were, what’s wrong with following “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”?
The Birmingham 6?
Ever heard of miscarriages of justice, Spanner?
Aren’t they the black vans they ship prisoners from the courts with? ;)
Makes the whole world blind – Gandhi.
So I get red-arrowed to hell for that?
I was of the assumption that the judiciary were impartial and unbiased. If you people think otherwise, then don’t shoot the messenger, state your proof to those able to change it. I’m sure they would love to hear your evidence.
I bet you left the caps lock on.
An indefinite sentence comes with a minimum before parole can be considered, That minimum can be as low as a couple years. However, the report does not state what the original minimum sentence was. If it was as low as, say, four years, then the minimum has now effectively been increased.
A few more facts would be helpful.
I have a strong preference for finite sentences, but people just, you know,…
‘Life’ is apparently finite, yet that means fck all either.
Although there isn’t a huge amount of detail in this article, it seems to me that this person is a danger to the public. The “indefinite” sentence isn’t about punishment – or it shouldn’t be – it is (should) be about protecting the public from harm. I suspect that a secure psychiatric hospital might be more appropriate than prison. Successive “build more prisons” governments don’t seem to share my view.
People should have a finite sentence, unless they’re psycho and need treatment.
OK, give them a finite sentence then.
How does 200 years sound?
How can you determine that though without any info?
Thats the problem with prejudice – it is always based on PERCEPTION of reality as opposed to ACTUAL reality…
Without the facts its impossible to judge whether this was an overly harsh sentence or not – but under those circumstances it is only right an proper that ALL criminals receive a determinate sentence (not least because of the effect that this has on behaviour INSIDE prison).
Absolute f disgusting, the guy should serve at least 30years for what he did he knew what he was going to do and carried out a vicious attack and should pay the price for doing such a horrendous crime. If this had been some heterosexual attacked by a gay person I wonder how the judges would have viewed that.
Hell this countries judicial system has gone completely to the dogs.
Are you a Daily Mail reader?
This sounds on the face of it to be an entirely sensible decision.
Indefinite periods of detention do more to assuage the knee-jerk (rabid) right-wing press than they do anything to actually stop or mend crime.
How do you then handle someone who has repeatedly offended and carried multiple serious assault/homicides – if you do not have the option of indefinite periods of detention?
Total bull. One of the most important factors of imprisonment is to keep people from committing again. Personally, I think in many cases the punishment and rehabilitation are pointless, and they may as well just hang them immediately and be done with it.
Here in the US, we have a 3 strikes law. If a person is convicted of 3 crimes, he’s consitered an habitual offender and is sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
At 19, it’s hard to think of someone that young as an habitual offender but committing another crime while out on bail for another boggles the mind as to why he may only have to serve 4.5 years. I do hope he has to prove to the parole board he’s no longer a threat to society.
Agreed, but equally, the USA has the highest number of prison inmates per capita of any country in the world, and they use them as slave labour for the US government. Something is very wrong there too.
Sadly both of you are correct……but there are MANY instances where the habitual offender, even a multiple murderer is set free, only to kill again, or rape again, even if they had hundreds of arrests. Yet someone who smokes a joint is sent to jail for 20 years, particularly in places like Texas and the rest of the South. Arbitrary and senseless, allowing the violent out of prison to harm again is beyond stupid.
This one has committed this offence twice now….he is hardly a ‘child’ and will eventually murder an innocent gay person. This one should not be let out at all because he WILL kill! Crimes against LGBTIQ people are sadly and obviously not considered as bad as crimes against heterosexuals…..will this ever change? Hatred does not leave a person who is filled with it, ever…..
Moaso? Sounds like an African name. If it is then it’s not too difficult to figure out where his attitudes towards gay people originated. Perhaps a bit of education to occupy the years in jail should be a mandatory addition to his sentence.
How about a bunch of Gay men waiting for him on his release day and attacking him in “self defense”?