The judge only suspended the sentence from 10am this morning to 2pm this afternoon. There will be plenty of folk enjoying the rest of today after that.
I can only imagine the sense of closure this decision will bring about and inspire. For those victims who testified and for those who didn't or couldn't.
His posturing on the steps of the court may have helped the sentence deliberation, along with his continued protestations of innocence and his absolute lack of remorse.
It is extremely unusual to have eight short prison sentences (i.e. all less than 2 years) all to be served consecutively, not concurrently. I certainly didn't expect that. He is likely to appeal the sentences, no doubt. If so, we may get to see if the Court of Appeal approves this approach.
Pete it is unusual, however when the judge realised that the offences were not going to carry the tariff of offences committed post the 2003 soa what choice did he have? Yes he will probably appeal, and will no doubt maintain his innocence throughout. Obviously the appeal will not look at his guilt , rather his sentences. He was/is a lucky man that no complainant came forward from this period 2003 onwards. I do not for one moment believe that the offending ended in the 80's.
So it appears judge Anthony Leonard was aware of Clifford's performance prior to sentence, and used it in his summing up.
Slightly off topic but as Spain and the UK are both EU members can the Spanish actually stop him going there if he choses to do so ?
Unless legislation has changed within the past 12 months, No, he will need to register his intent to travel in a foreign travel notification, however his conditions of release may prohibit him until his sentence is spent. However the Spanish authorities should be informed of his decision and they may attempt to block residency/entry as undesirable.
I used the word 'spent' in laymans terms I apologise if my use causes confusion. I was attempting to show that just because someone is released from a custodial sentence that they may not have full liberty back.
I totally agree actually. When I saw consecutively I googled other sites as I thought it was a type error
When new legislation comes in introducing new offences or more severe sentencing for existing offences, it is not retrospective*. Offences committed 30 years ago fall to be sentenced under the law as it stood 30 years ago. Max Clifford's offences were committed many years ago, at a time when the maximum was two years in prison (as I understand it), although it was subsequently increased. As reported in the media, the judge (Anthony Leonard) alluded to the changes in the law in his sentencing remarks. He also passed eight short sentences on eight charges, then stitched them together consecutively into an eight-year total. The "totality" principle requires consideration of the aggregate sentence, but that must be under the sentencing regime which applied at the time, not today's. If the aggregating was done in order to circumvent the rule against retrospection, it is a very dubious principle indeed. The Court of Appeal will no doubt have to decide in due course whether this is legally acceptable - and my guess would be probably not. * Unless Parliament specifies that it is retrospective, which would be controversial and very rare indeed.
