The simple answer is 'yes' to both questions.
The sentences, which many in legal circles and at least one MP consider too lenient were discussed on the radio and whilst I don't know if the judge did take it into consideration, there was certainly an expectation that there would contain an element of deterrent to others.
This is perfectly normal, and is used where the judge feels it is necessary to send a message to others that the crime is serious and the punishment must reflect the crime.
As to them being 'high flyers', well that was not why she was given the same sentence. She was considered to have not just lied, but to have manipulated etc and that her claims for coercion were baseless.
These are people who were in positions of trust in the work that they did. They were paid for their 'expertise' because they were trusted and respected to be honest and law-abiding. They dealt with other people's lives and finances. They held positions of privilege, access and power.
So, when people in a position of trust are found to have abused that trust, to have done so willingly and complicitly, to have covered it up for years only revealing the crime in an act of revenge, and subsequently attempted to conceal, lie and manipulate the truth about their crimes, the sentence may well need to reflect the severity not only of the crime, but that these people had greater access to help cover up those crimes due to their positions in life.
Bear in mind that for years, many others knew about the original crime because she had talked about it to 'some friends' who were with her on the night in question, but all felt obliged to say nothing for whatever reason. Was that out of misguided loyalty or because they felt a degree of duress?
Then, and this may yet to prove another can of worms, she claims to have told, without care or concern for the recipients, a whole load of senior Govt people and/or their spouses about the whole saga, thereby putting them in a very difficult position - assuming it is true.
There may be an element of truth in this, but if she did not tell anyone, then she has continued to attempt to drag innocent people into this mess and this would be well after the initial shock of her marriage breaking down.
It smacks of someone attempting to manipulate others to leverage protection. She had access to those people in power who she sought to manipulate by dragging them into the whole mess.
What is truly appalling is all those with the same privilege and status bleating about how they 'didn't deserve' a custodial sentence and 'is this really the best use of the prison services to incarcerate two (insert ludicrously gushing terms) people of this standing'?
If these two had been let off with a suspended sentence, or given a CSO for a couple of hours a week, it would have opened the doors for loads of other criminals to seek far more lenient sentences and simply given the message that it's ok to break the law, lie, involve others putting them at risk, and get to keep your lovely lifestyle.
The other way to ask this - should those who are 3 sandwiches short of a picnic, on the bottom rung of society with no hope of ever moving up the ladder, who struggle to keep going, be given the same sentence for the same crime, because they're only going to sink further into the gutter.
These two will not only come out smelling of roses in 8 weeks, they'll already have their welcome home parties and new, reinvented lives ready to walk into.
********************************************************************************
My body is an old warehouse full of declining storage, my mind is a dusty old reference library, strictly for members and archaeologists only
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
