This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Stuart Hall's jail term 'did not reflect gravity' of offences Stuart Hall jail term doubled by Court of Appeal
(about 2 hours later)
Stuart Hall's sentence for indecent assault did not adequately reflect the gravity of his offences, the attorney general has told the Court of Appeal. Former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall's 15-month sentence for a series of indecent assaults has been doubled by the Court of Appeal.
Dominic Grieve made the submission at the start of a hearing in London. Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said his original term had been "unduly lenient" and the impact on Hall's victims had been lifelong.
The judges are being asked to rule on whether or not Hall's 15-month sentence was "unduly lenient". Hall, 83, of Wilmslow, admitted 14 counts against girls aged from nine to 17 between 1967 and 1985 in June.
Former BBC broadcaster Hall, 83, of Wilmslow, was jailed in June after admitting 14 counts against girls aged from nine to 17 between 1967 and 1985. His term was increased to 30 months after the attorney general's appeal.
Mr Grieve told Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Lady Justice Rafferty and Mrs Justice Macur that the sentence "when coupled with the aggravating features... failed adequately to reflect the gravity of the totality of the offences, and the public concern about offences of this nature". Lord Judge said that the assaults were "real", but added that some of Hall's victims had been disappointed by Dominic Grieve's decision to appeal the length of the sentence.
He added that Hall had "got away with it" for decades and had "lived a lie for more than half of his life".
Hall, listening to proceedings via video link from HMP Preston, kept his head bowed and showed no reaction as the decision was announced.
'Punished, disgraced and ruined'
Earlier, Mr Grieve had told Lord Judge, Lady Justice Rafferty and Mrs Justice Macur that the original sentence "when coupled with the aggravating features... failed adequately to reflect the gravity of the totality of the offences, and the public concern about offences of this nature".
"Even if the individual sentences for each count are appropriate given the statutory maximum available, some should have been made to run consecutively so that the total sentence passed reflected the culpability of the offender, the harm caused and [would] deter others," he said."Even if the individual sentences for each count are appropriate given the statutory maximum available, some should have been made to run consecutively so that the total sentence passed reflected the culpability of the offender, the harm caused and [would] deter others," he said.
He added that "it appears to me that the sentence was unduly lenient". Crispin Aylett QC, for Hall, had said the sentence was "entirely appropriate" given the former broadcaster's age and the facts that he pleaded guilty early and that his last offence occurred 27 years ago.
'Alcohol and planning' He had told the court: "If the object was to see this man punished, disgraced and financially ruined then all of that has been more than achieved."
Crispin Aylett QC, for Hall, said the sentence was "entirely appropriate" given the former broadcaster's age and the facts that he pleaded guilty early and that his last offence occurred 27 years ago. 'Celebrity status'
He told the court: "If the object was to see this man punished, disgraced and financially ruined then all of that has been more than achieved." Speaking after the ruling, Mr Grieve said he had asked the court to "consider the multiple offending by Stuart Hall over a prolonged period of time which involved numerous victims".
Documents submitted to the court by the attorney general include a list of aggravating features to be considered by the judges. He said he had wanted the judges to take into account "breaches of trust" by Hall, as "some of these offences [were] in places where the victims were entitled to feel safe".
They include Hall's "prolonged and repeated offending" and the fact there were multiple victims "some of particularly tender age [and] in circumstances of acute vulnerability". "He used his celebrity status to invite them to attend the BBC and he also displayed an element of planning and premeditation," he said.
They also state that some of the offences included a "gross breach of trust", "an element of grooming", the "use of alcohol" and "planning and premeditation". Mr Grieve added that he was "pleased" with the increase in Hall's sentence, which "highlighted the fact that historical sexual offences are always taken very seriously and [showed] the law still applies, whoever the offender may be".
Mr Grieve said the crimes had had a "profound effect" on the victims and that force had been used by Hall on two occasions.
Lord Judge said it was the court's view that the statement made by Hall prior to conviction, in which he branded the accusations as "pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious", was a "seriously aggravating feature".
The judges have now retired to consider their decision.