Lord Herschell says yeah but no but yeah but no ....

Background

A husband and wife were charged with murdering a child they were fostering and burying it in their backyard.

During their trial evidence of twelve other babies found buried in the backyards of their previous residences was offered as evidence.

The appeal was based on whether this evidence was admissible or whether it was unfairly prejudicial to their defence.

Opinion of the Court

Lord Herschell held that the evidence, in this case, was admissible, however, as a general rule evidence of a past similar event should not be admissible unless there are exceptional circumstances.

"It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution to adduce evidence tending to shew that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his criminal conduct or character to have committed the offence for which he is being tried. On the other hand, the mere fact that the evidence adduced tends to shew the commission of other crimes does not render it inadmissible if it be relevant to an issue before the jury, and it may be so relevant if it bears upon the question whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or accidental, or to rebut a defence which would otherwise be open to the accused. The statement of these general principles is easy, but it is obvious that it may often be very difficult to draw the line and to decide whether a particular piece of evidence is on the one side or the other.' "

Evidence of similar facts can only be admitted if it is both relevant and probative to a degree that it substantially outweighs the unfair prejudicial effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makin_v_Attorney_General_for_New_South_Wales

Yes, I am still upset about Rolf Harris and still going on about it.

If I were dictator able to rewrite the laws of the land at a clattering of my keyboard, how would I fix things so Rolf Harris got off?

I would actually keep all this yeah but no but yeah stuff and still let the judiciary decide where they think evidence reaches the standard of relevancy and probity that makes it outweigh the unfair prejudicial effect on an ad hoc basis.

We already know what the rule is for, but no case can be exactly the same and we can only reason by analogy.

But I would make it a rule that UNCORROBORATED testimony is never admissible, no matter how many complainants there are.

This means if it is just one person's word against another, forget it, unless the alleged offence was reported within 4 weeks of the commission of the alleged offence to the police.

I think 4 weeks is time enough. If it was really serious you would report it immediately without passing go and without collecting £200. If you took 4 weeks to think about it and then decided not to, then you weren't obviously that bothered about it.

If you are out of time then it is too bad and you have to just get on with your life: this has the advantage of helping the victim achieve closure. If you are really that bothered about it, you can do stuff to the perpetrator for revenge and take your chances with the law if what you do to the perpetrator breaks the law.

Extensions are only permitted if you were kidnapped, imprisoned and kept as a sex slave, obviously. Then time would start to run the moment you were in a position to report the sexual abuse you suffered.

If the victim is a child then time runs from the time the parent/guardian/carer knew of the alleged abuse.

I think that is nice and clear, don't you?

http://www.richardwebster.net/similarfactevidence.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts

Evidence that jury were hopelessly confused by judge's directions and grounds for appeal, I would have thought

'We would like some clarification,' the note began, before going on to query if they could discuss the legal directions they'd been given 'as there seems some confusion'.
The note raised five points, including whether the jury was 'to judge each count independently'.

Harris is charged with 12 counts of indecent assault against four girls in the UK between 1968 and 1986.

The Australian's main accuser is a childhood friend of his daughter Bindi.

She claims Harris abused her from the age of 13 but he insists the pair had a 10-year consensual affair that started after she turned 18.

Jurors on Thursday asked: 'Is it allowed to stereotype what the victim should have done prior to an alleged offence taking place in more than one count or using it against them?'

Justice Sweeney responded by reminding the six men and six women of the lengthy legal directions he'd given them both in court and in writing.

They could, if they decided to, consider evidence from other complainants or witnesses when deciding each indecent assault charge, he said.

The judge also reiterated there was no classic or typical response to abuse.

'A late complaint does not necessarily signal a false complaint any more than an immediate complaint demonstrates it's true,' he said.

Justice Sweeney reminded jurors there was no stereotype for a sexual offence, a sex offender or a victim of sexual abuse.

- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/europe/2014/06/27/harris-jury-seeks-clarification.html#sthash.Z76aaB5m.dpuf

Are you any the wiser after reading this? If you think you are clear, then write me a point by point explanation of all the questions the jury asked and what you thought Justice Sweeney's directions were. Go on, I dare you.

This should be next year's exam question for law students.  Wouldn't this be fun? NOT.

Even better, why don't we get all the judges of Criminal Appeal to do this too and fucking PUBLISH WHAT THEY MAKE OF IT ONLINE, in terms a lay jury can understand?

Then we can get all the academic lawyers and philosophers to write papers on what they make of the crap they are bound to read.

What were those lengthy legal directions Justice Sweeney gave the jury? Therein will lie the grounds for appeal.  

Claire Khaw on the Peter Levy Show

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01y3rpr

From the 24th minute talking about http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-grounds-on-which-max-clifford.html which Christine Hamilton had read before coming on air. She said said I was being rude about the intelligence and education of the average juror.  Fortunately, she had not read http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/is-average-juror-capable-of.html in which I was even ruder.

Peter Levy

Christine Hamilton

Max Clifford

PL:

Tabloid publicist Max Clifford was jailed on Friday for a total of 8 years for a string of indecent assaults against girls and young women and was found guilty of 8 counts of indecent assault, 4 of those counts were against one woman who was 15 when he first assaulted her.  The judge said that Clifford had groomed and degraded his victims and ruled he should his 8 sentences of between 6 and 24 months consecutively and not concurrently.  Joining me now is political commentator Claire Khaw who has written a blog in which she says that she doesn't believe any evidence so old can ever be reliable enough to satisfy a criminal standard of proof and that it doesn't call for an 8 year sentence for a 71 year old man. Claire's joining me now on the line, Claire good afternoon to you.

CK:
Good afternoon.

PL:
Do you have doubts about the evidence after such a long time?  Is that what worries you?

CK:

It went back 30 to 37 years, didn't they, all these charges and I wonder what kind of justice you can get if somebody can say that you assaulted them 30 to 37 years ago and they are not required to furnish any DNA evidence.  We may not like Max Clifford and he may have ruined lots of people's lives but what happens if other people are accused on the basis of this kind thing?

PL:

Well he has been found guilty by a jury.  Are you saying just because he is 71 one he doesn't deserve 8 years in prison?

CK:

I don't think I am the only one who considers this sort of thing excessive.

PL:

You are in the minority.

CK:

I am aware that I and a barrister called Barbara Hewson are in the minority here but certain legal principles do need to be defended.  Just because we hate Max Clifford doesn't mean that the rules which convicted him cannot be used to convict other people.

PL:

Barbara Hewson is a barrister and she has written that is loaded against defendants. Do you agree with that and why?

CK:

Just because of how it happened.  I know that Dave Lee Travis and the other nicer guys got off because they showed appropriate humility and refrained from showing the arrogance that Max Clifford did, and perhaps that was why he was convicted, because no one liked him and because he ruined many peoples' lives, but he was on trial for being accused of what he had done, not the fact that he ...

PL:

I don't think many would actually understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that because he is 71 he shouldn't have had such a long sentence and he didn't come across very well in the trial, rather than the crimes he committed and the awful things he has done to people?

CK:

It was indecent assault and it was a long time ago and there was this suggestion that these women were there hoping that something would come out of, well, putting up with these sexual assaults, I suppose.

PL:

Well, that's a terrible thing to say! I don't think many people will have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying.

CK:

I am quite aware of this.  There is this recent Mail story about ...

PL:

Be careful what you say.

CK:

I am, but it's in the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620150/Max-Clifford-sex-daughters-disabled-toilet-Mayfair-office-unofficial-casting-couch.html and there was this woman who said she had sex with him in the toilet of his daughter at his offices.  She said she didn't like it, she didn't want it and nothing came of it, but there was no suggestion that he dragged her there and made her do all those terrible things she did.  There is that element to be considered, really.

PL:
So, if you could sum up what you were saying in a sentence, what would it be?

CK:

I would say that these accusations should be treated with a great deal of care because in my opinion they should have been tried separately.  All these accusations should have been tried separately rather than bundled together making the jury think that by the sheer number of accusations they were more likely to be true than not.

What should be the punishment for what happened in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620150/Max-Clifford-sex-daughters-disabled-toilet-Mayfair-office-unofficial-casting-couch.html?

100 lashes for Sarah Symonds and a 100 lashes for Max.

http://quran.com/24/2

The Koran really has all the answers! 

Some views on the conviction of Max Clifford

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf

"You took an 18 year old on as your receptionist. You asked her to masturbate you on two or three occasions and SHE FELT THAT SHE HAD NO CHOICE TO COMPLY [emphasis is mine]. You ejaculated into her hand and tissues. You fondled her breasts. You asked her to give you oral sex in exchange for being taken to meet David Bowie.”

CHOOSING to comply, even if you find this unpleasant, is implicit consent. We can infer this from the woman's actions and failure to resist or communicate her lack of consent. The issue of consent is now dangerously reduced to a matter of internal emotion, regardless of expressing verbally and behaviourally this lack of consent.

What if Clifford actually thought she was accepting and wanted to do it purely because she did not resist?

Do you mean to tell me Leon that Clifford asked these women to do things and they did them?

They may have lost their job if they refused.

But in no way has it been proven that he threatened them with physical harm or put them in danger.
He didn't threaten their life or their families?

Is this true?

That is true. Additionally, I remain completely unconvinced that any force was involved. He was a bit lecherous and asked them to perform obscene acts on him, which they didn't really want to do, BUT DID ANYWAY. At no point did he pin them down to disable them and molest them. At no point did they fight him off, therefore resisting their consent.

It seems that ‘rape’ and ‘assault’ in this country can now mean “I did it, but I found it unpleasant and went along with it, saying nothing and choosing not to resist”.

No proof at all of him threatening them with weapons and violence?

No physical assault, in terms of holding them down or having others hold them down?

Nothing like that at all?

Nothing whatsoever. And none of the convictions involve vaginal penetration by his penis.

So Clifford asked his secretaries and assistants etc to toss him off and finger themselves.

They agreed to do this even though they might not have enjoyed it.

Decades later they run to the law accusing him of assault and rape?

Seriously, is this what has happened?

Yes, this is what has happened. We are going the way of ultra-feminist, dementia-ridden Sweden, where a woman can decide a man has raped her after RETROSPECTIVELY withdrawing her consent, i.e. she can decide she did not consent AFTER having sex.

I'm fucking stunned.

I honestly didn't realise that these were the events.

here was an accusation that he assaulted a 12-year-old in Spain, but this was thrown out because at the time it allegedly happened, British courts could not convict people for crimes committed abroad.

Nonetheless, this same alleged accuser was brought in as a witness to testify against Clifford's character, even though her supposed assault had nothing to do with the ones Clifford was standing trial for, and despite the fact Clifford has never faced trial or been convicted of assaulting her.

In other words, she testified against his character based on what she claims to have experienced in Spain aged 12, and this was treated by the prosecution as true despite there being no proof and no past conviction for this.

He was acquitted of some of the alleged incidents with minors (15 years of age), but the ones he was convicted of involved young women over the age of consent.

This is extremely dangerous.

His legal team have done an awful job.

He should sack his team and hire Barbara Hewson.

I believe he was convicted for several offenses involving minors

Were these other offenses proven in a court of law?

I could be mistaken, but I believe all his convictions involved girls over the age of consent at the time. Regardless, he has been convicted IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

One of the girls he was convicted of molesting was 15

Is that true? Was one of the girls 15?

He was convicted - he is guilty. It is perverse having a problem accepting this. Many people are rightly convicted without physical evidence.

Many people in.his position - who I presume to be innocent - are not found guilty in. Most have been in fact.
I rejoice in the vile Clifford's guilt.

Check the reports of his conviction - they are online

I have just checked. Yes, one of the convictions was against a girl who was 15 at the time. She allegedly sucked him off, tossed him off, and he fingered her. He was convicted, I repeat, IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It was her word against his.

All the other convictions were for acts with girls over the age of consent. He was cleared of all the other convictions involving minors.

It's still a very shaky conviction.

Only reason it stuck is because he has pissed off the wrong people and because when a number of alleged victims make accusations at the same time, it looks bad whether true or false.

 The whole thing stinks. I think it is because Operation Yewtree has been a complete failure. They didn't manage to secure a single conviction until Clifford (on very, very flimsy ‘evidence’ and in a sham trial that barrister Barbara Hewson explained in her Spiked article).
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/14981#.U2awdPldVqU
The powers that be had to make sure Yewtree secured convictions.

Are you suggesting the powers that be nobbled the jury or the judge to get poor innocent Max Clifford banged up to justify Operation Yewtree? What nonsense.

It has already been established by people who WERE in court that there was no physical evidence. If there is no evidence, it was his word against theirs.

Once upon a time, this shite would have been thrown out of court.
Are you willing to accept that Clifford-hater's points are valid and perhaps this conviction of Clifford is more solid than you originally thought?

No, I don't accept Clifford-hater's assertions at all. Plebs want to think Clifford is guilty regardless of procedural fairness. This is because they like to concentrate their anger on scapegoats. Clifford is a Yewtree scapegoat -- a scapegoat for Savile's crimes, even though he was never linked to Savile.

Is the average juror getting stupider and stupider even as the rules that make a fair trial more likely are done away with by PC libtards and feminists?

Is the average juror really capable of distinguishing between the number of accusations against an accused and the veracity of them?  Is it possible that they are not really capable of holding more than one thought in their heads at any given time?

it is worth reflecting on the wider issues posed by these historic cases. The problem is two-fold: one, the social climate in which defendants are tried is especially hostile to sex crime; and two, the courts have dismantled certain procedural safeguards that previously were in place to protect an accused, so the dice is now loaded against the accused in a way that it would not have been at the time of the offence. Thus, the requirement for independent corroboration in sex cases has been removed.

The most radical shift in criminal procedure is the abolition of what used to be called the ‘similar fact’ evidence rule. In a case called DPP v Boardman in 1975, the House of Lords acknowledged that offences could ordinarily only be tried together if the offender’s modus operandi showed a ‘strikingly similar’ method, such as a rapist who always wore a Batman costume. This enabled the defence to keep out evidence that might be prejudicial, such as cases where witnesses have colluded to give false evidence, or cases where one witness has simply been influenced by contact with another witness.

Unfortunately, in 1991 and 1995, the Lords took a different approach, and relaxed this rule. That has led to the current practice of ‘bundling’ of multiple sex allegations in the same trial. It’s called ‘corroboration by volume’, or ‘no smoke without fire’. And it is hugely effective, which is why it has become the prosecution’s favourite tactic.

This development coincided with the practice of police ‘trawling’ for complainants, which unfolded as a result of the ‘paedophile ring’ theory of abuse that police and social workers were following when investigating children’s care homes in the 1990s. The consequences for our justice system have been very serious. Time after time, juries are faced with extremely grave accusations of an historic nature, where there is no supporting independent evidence (such as medical evidence), but which turn simply on one person’s word against another’s.

As the historian Richard Webster pointed out in his Memorandum of Evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which examined this problem in 2002: ‘When defendants are compelled to face large numbers of allegations of sexual abuse made by different complainants in a single trial, the presumption of innocence is almost inevitably destroyed.’

The emotional impact on a jury of a whole sequence of tearful complainants speaking of sexual violation cannot be underestimated. The obscenity and, sometimes, violence involved makes their stories extremely powerful, even where the vague nature of historic allegations (usually without any specific dates) make them well-nigh impossible to rebut convincingly, unless by chance some contemporaneous document is unearthed, which gives the accused a convincing alibi.

To make matters more complicated, it is now received wisdom among the victim/ survivor movement and the therapy industry that rape and other forms of sexual assault invariably scar victims for life, causing them years of torment. This reflects decades of feminist campaigning.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/14981#.U2VASfldVqU

As one expert pointed out in the landmark malicious falsehood case of Reed & Lillie in 2002:

‘when a collective belief [that children have been abused] takes root in a group, it is a very powerful force. It holds people in a group, who mutually reinforce each other, and it is quite difficult for professionals, unless they are very experienced, to stand back from the weight of that belief system.

A troubling feature of the present approach to historic abuse allegations is the deployment of the logical fallacy: ‘if so many people from different parts of the country are saying this, it must be true.’ Exactly the same naïve literalism was evinced about allegations of Satanic ritual abuse in the early 1990s, which turned out to be fantasy.

"The risk, the danger, the logical fallacy is indeed quite manifest to those who are in the habit of thinking about such matters. It is so easy to derive from a series of unsatisfactory accusations, if there are enough of them, an accusation which at least appears satisfactory. It is so easy to collect from a mass of ingredients, not one of which is sufficient, a totality which will appear to contain what is missing. That of course is only another way of saying that when a person is dealing with a considerable mass of facts, in particular if those facts are of such a nature as to invite reprobation, nothing is easier than confusion of mind; and, therefore, if such charges are to be brought in a mass, it becomes essential that the method upon which guilt is to be ascertained should be stated with punctilious exactness".

 it is not uncommon for ‘survivors’ making allegations to have had prior contact, for example via social media sites: another source of witness contamination.

http://www.barristermagazine.com/article-listing/current-issue/the-cult-of-victimhood-and-the-limits-of-the-law-part-1.html?fb_action_ids=636027906471846&fb_action_types=og.likes

Are some people just too stupid to serve on a jury?

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/379367/Are-some-people-just-too-stupid-to-serve-on-a-jury

If, as the Guardian, says the numbers of learning disabled people are increasing by 5% every year, in which year will Britain be 100% learning disabled?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/in-what-year-will-britain-be-100.html

Q:  What causes inferior and degenerate offspring and learning and other disabilities?

A:   Careless copulation by sluts leading to widespread illegitimacy and racial and national degeneracy.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/humpback-whales-cleverer-than.html
Humpback whales cleverer than promiscuous human females living in a welfare state

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/130524/western-iqs-drop-14-points-last-century-study-says-2
Western IQs drop by 14 points in last century, study says

Are people getting stupider and stupider and more and more degenerate the sluttier women become?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
Most British mothers SSMs, most British children bastards.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

Are these women likely to be good mothers and care about the education of their children?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9064993/Children-not-toilet-trained-when-they-start-school.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-30342/Working-mothers-risk-damaging-childs-prospects.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1299400/Fathers-sleazy-mothers-lazy-What-au-pair-REALLY-thinks-you.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619234/Hooked-diet-pills-heroin-obsessed-mothers-death-worried-money-tragic-truth-Paeches-Geldofs-perfect-life.html 

Peaches Geldof - an extremely bad example of liberal parenting?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-25189/British-parents-ignorant-children.html

DISGUSTING standards of parenting in Britain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10488555/OECD-education-report-subject-results-in-full.html

Are the mothers in the countries that came top in the OECD league tables mostly SSMs and practitioners of liberal parenting? No?  res ipsa loquitur.

100 lashes instead of £100 would stop Slut Single Mums producing yet more variously-fathered feral criminal rioting bastards dragging the British average down in the OECD league tables.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/degenerate-british-government-pays-slut.html

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil." 

The grounds on which Max Clifford should appeal

William Blackstone:

"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer."

The reason for this suddenly became clear to me after Max Clifford was found guilty.  While I think he probably did do it, I also wanted him to be found not guilty because I do not believe that any evidence adduced after such a lapse of time can ever be reliable enough to satisfy a criminal standard of proof.

While it is true that Clifford was arrogant and mocked his accusers playing the fool mimicking a television journalist behind his back, what he did does not call for an eight year sentence for a 71 year old man.  The term "cruel and unusual punishment" comes to mind.

If Clifford had been less arrogant or even obviously submissive, he might have got off.  So there we are: the British are now a people reduced to thinking it is all right only to give justice only to people they like, screw procedural fairness and the burden of proof. Nationalists gloating that a Labour supporter such as Clifford has now got his comeuppance should reflect on how popular nationalists and nationalism are to the average juror.

Am I the only one who thinks eight years for what he was alleged to have done so many years ago by so many women who wanted to get into showbiz (and we know what kind of women these tend to be) just a little excessive?

Also, it occurs to me that the sheer number of these allegations was reason enough to have these charges tried separately, or the barely schooled plebs on the jury would soon think in their barely schooled plebeian way that the number of these allegations was evidence itself of their veracity. Not everyone can be as consistently impartial and logical like me, after all. Not even my detractors would deny that I would probably be a senior member of the judiciary by now if I had taken all the necessary career turnings, and then be out on my ear like poor old Sir Paul Coleridge who dared to defend the only institution that would protect and maintain the patriarchy - marriage. That was why the matriarchy made him resign for daring to be so controversial as to promote - SHOCK HORROR - marriage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526180/Anger-judge-forced-resign-championing-marriage-Sir-Paul-Coleridge.html

In a matriarchy, the right to have extramarital sex is sacred while speaking in defence of marriage these days is concerned career-threatening blasphemy. This is the kind of country Britain has now become, suffering from homosexuality, gay marriage and dementia, as Robert Mugabe so delicately put it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-i-brokered-a-peace-deal-with-robert-mugabe-roy-agyemang-reveals-the-delicate-diplomacy-needed-to-get-zimbabwes-president-to-sit-down-with-the-bbc-9268511.html

While it would have been obviously cheaper to throw all the charges at Clifford all at the same time, it is quite obvious that in a case like this, where the evidence can be so easily made up, and the number of women probably doing it for revenge and gain reckless with the truth these days so high, it is not safe for all the charges to be made one after another at the same trial, because it gives such a bad impression of the accused, especially when it is just one person's word against another.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious that the interests of justice would have required a separate trial for each allegation, especially allegations of this nature.

The way the judge went on about unproven allegations and treated them as if they had been was quite unpardonable.

Pertinent to count 3-6 is the evidence of what you did to a 12 year old girl
whilst she was on holiday in Puerto Cabopino. I am satisfied so that I am sure
on the evidence which the jury heard that this amounted to another sexual
offence against a young child. Had the offence not taken place abroad and at a
time when it was not justiciable here you would have been charged with
indecent assault in relation to it. 

23. This girl became a holiday friend of your daughter. Having groomed her by
playing a tickling game with her in the swimming pool, you got her parents’
permission to take her to a Jacuzzi in the hotel complex. 

24. Whilst your daughter was absent and you were in the Jacuzzi with the 12 year
old you put your hand down her bikini and onto her pubic mound and asked if
she was ticklish there. You then got hold of her hand and moved it onto your
erect penis and started moving her hand up and down quite slowly. You
stopped when your daughter came to the Jacuzzi

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf

Interestingly, nowhere has it been said that Clifford has been found guilty of this.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/05/02/max-clifford-sentenced/

Mr Clifford was sentenced as follows (date and age of victim in brackets) :

Count 3 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 12 months
Count 4 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 18 months, consecutive
Count 5 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 24 months, consecutive
Count 6 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 24 months, concurrent
Count 8 – (aged 19, in 1981/82) – 6 months, consecutive
Count 9 – (aged 16 or 17, in 1980′s) – 6 months, concurrent
Count 10 – (aged 16 or 17, in 1980′s) – 21 months, consecutive
Count 11 – (aged 18, in 1984/85) – 15 months, consecutive

The individual sentences are not far off what we had predicted, but the total is, as we said, double what we had predicted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2618575/Victims-fury-stars-backed-untouchable-Clifford-predator-jailed-eight-years.html#ixzz30r5y8g3s

The judge also said he believed the accounts of six women whom Clifford was not charged over but who were prosecution supporting witnesses at his trial.

Their ‘compelling evidence’ included how Clifford sexually abused a 12-year-old girl in a Jacuzzi during a family holiday in Spain in 1983.

Note that Clifford has not been found guilty of sexually abusing the 12 year old girl.  Yet this "evidence" was deemed to be "compelling" enough to convict him of the other charges.

Surely shome mistake?  It really does sound like Judge Leonard has got his judicial knickers in a twist over that.

It is to be hoped that what I have said will furnish grounds for appeal for poor old Maxie, but if not I shall be happy to visit him in prison to cheer him up and give him opportunities of proposing to me.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/some-views-on-conviction-of-max-clifford.html

He may want a new wife soon and I think I could deal with a husband who is mostly away with no danger of unreasonable sexual demands being made upon me.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/why-would-any-englishman-want-to-marry.html