Max Clifford Clearly Innocent

     There is a good article on this on Spiked here from barrister Barbara Hewson about the injustice of the Clifford sentencing - specifically described as in her private capacity.

     In particular it draws attention to the ECHR requirement that "‘No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.’

    He has had the maximum sentence - 2 years each - but the use of consecutive terms rather than concurrent - ie 8 years in total rather than 2 - is completely against all practice at the time.

    A commenter points out that
Ian B • 

I was also surprised that the judge in his sentencing (point 21) openly states that he is taking into account the offences of which Clifford was acquitted, as if he had been convicted of them. Is a judge even allowed to do that?

     I don't think it can be legal for a judge to "take into account" something the defendant has been found innocent of either. Indeed I cannot conceive of any just legal system where being innocent would be grounds for increased punishment.
###########################################

     The thing that astonishes me is that I put up a there on Spiked yesterday specifically saying that I believe he is innocent and that we are seeing a "shameful" witch hunt. Yet it is not on there.

      I will see if it appears again. And if so past it here too.

      Or I may rewrite it from memory.

      However if even Spiked, which prides itself on publishing what others fear to, feels it cannot allow a rigorous defence of an octogenarian of whom there is good reason to believe he is being falsely imprisoned then that alone confirms the extent of the witch hunt we are seeing.