Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The (Amir, Asif, Butt) Spot Fixing Trial

Absurd sentences.

Butt's wife gave birth a few minutes after he was sent down. as his lawyer said, he's already lost everything, show some leniency in the sentencing, judge.
 
Probably not the place for this, but what, exactly, do judges think prison is for? Strikes me that they don't have a clue what they are doing or why.

I couldn't argue with a lifetime ban from professional sport for all of them, even though I think Amir deserves a second chance. But prison? Idiotic.
 
Little Britain likes prison, where hopefully life means life and prisoners don't get Sky telly or hot showers.
 
No doubt they'll come out with some guff about pour encourager les autres. Never struck me as a concept that had much to do with 'justice', that.
 
I think this is playing to a much wider audience than little britain
And the wider audience is likely to see this as a singling out of Pakistanis, I would have thought. Cronje, Gibbs et al in South Africa never faced prison.

They've been jailed for things it is assumed they did on top of this, I reckon. The actual case proven against them is less serious than what Cronje was proven to have done, for instance.
 
Probably not the place for this, but what, exactly, do judges think prison is for? Strikes me that they don't have a clue what they are doing or why.

I couldn't argue with a lifetime ban from professional sport for all of them, even though I think Amir deserves a second chance. But prison? Idiotic.

It was a betting fraud, and going by the sums involved quite a significant one. The judge also refused to accept it was a one-off.

I personally don't understand why anyone would bet on no-balls, but apparently some do, and some of those have been defrauded. I agree that the cricketers should be banned from cricket, but there's a criminal case to answer too.

In saying that, the sentences seem - to my admittedly untrained eye - as being quite stiff.
 
And the wider audience is likely to see this as a singling out of Pakistanis, I would have thought. Cronje, Gibbs et al in South Africa never faced prison.

They've been jailed for things it is assumed they did on top of this, I reckon. The actual case proven against them is less serious than what Cronje was proven to have done, for instance.

It doesn't quiete seem balanced, does it.
 
You can't sentence somebody to jail on speculation that they must have done more of it than has been presented. It has to be purely on what is in front of the court.
 
It was a betting fraud, and going by the sums involved quite a significant one. The judge also refused to accept it was a one-off.

As a point of law, judges aren't allowed to sentence on the basis of crimes they assume have been done, are they? Afaik, the only case proven against them is the no-ball thing last year. Judges sentencing on the basis of crimes they have no evidence for doesn't sound lawful to me.
 
In saying that, the sentences seem - to my admittedly untrained eye - as being quite stiff.

The law isn't just for lawyers. The law is supposed to be for everyone. We are all entitled to a view on sentences. There are no 'trained' eyes in this.
 
You can't sentence somebody to jail on speculation that they must have done more of it than has been presented. It has to be purely on what is in front of the court.

This one event is sufficient, and I think the judge was indicating he was satisfied that this wasn't a single moment of weakness.

How he reached that conclusion, I don't know. Perhaps there was evidence to support that. Perhaps not.
 
And the wider audience is likely to see this as a singling out of Pakistanis, I would have thought. Cronje, Gibbs et al in South Africa never faced prison.

They've been jailed for things it is assumed they did on top of this, I reckon. The actual case proven against them is less serious than what Cronje was proven to have done, for instance.

Did they get caught and tried in Britain?

I think the sentences are harsh but i have to say I support the message that if you get caught match fixing in sport in the UK, you face signifciant penalties.

I assume they will appeal the sentences.
 
As a point of law, judges aren't allowed to sentence on the basis of crimes they assume have been done, are they? Afaik, the only case proven against them is the no-ball thing last year. Judges sentencing on the basis of crimes they have no evidence for doesn't sound lawful to me.

Fine. It's still a criminal offence, one-off or as part of a series.
 
This one event is sufficient, and I think the judge was indicating he was satisfied that this wasn't a single moment of weakness.

How he reached that conclusion, I don't know. Perhaps there was evidence to support that. Perhaps not.
How can he be 'satisfied' about that without having the evidence for it tested in a court?

I don't doubt for one second that this was not a one-off, but that's different from saying that I can prove other cases and a court should be able to sentence on the basis of hunches, which is all my lack of doubt is based on.

I've been following this fairly closely, btw, and the only thing they've been convicted of is this no-ball incident. Everything else is pure speculation on the part of the judge. I share the judge's suspicions, but I don't like this idea that judges are allowed to act on their suspicions.

And you know what, given Amir's extreme youth and newness to the team, this could easily have been the first incident for him.
 
How can he be 'satisfied' about that without having the evidence for it tested in a court?

I don't doubt for one second that this was not a one-off, but that's different from saying that I can prove other cases and a court should be able to sentence on the basis of hunches, which is all my lack of doubt is based on.

The fact the judge said it suggests there was evidence. I haven't seen beyond what's been reported, so I could stand to be corrected, but my rather naive assumption is that judges in such places do not say such things without good reason.

This is actually a bit of a red herring, unless the judge has gone beyond sentencing guidelines for this one event - my take was that he refused leniency.
 
The fact the judge said it suggests there was evidence. I haven't seen beyond what's been reported, so I could stand to be corrected, but my rather naive assumption is that judges in such places do not say such things without good reason.

This is actually a bit of a red herring, unless the judge has gone beyond sentencing guidelines for this one event - my take was that he refused leniency.
He refused leniency on the basis that he reckoned this was not an isolated incident. I'm not a lawyer. He could be within his legal rights to do that. I still do not like the idea of judges having that kind of leeway in general.

As for judges not saying such things without good reason, well, I think that is a naive assumption, tbh. Judges can and do do crass, idiotic things all the time.

Oh and Amir's sentence appears to be a direct response to his failure to take the stand and say that Butt told him to do it. That is what the judge was expecting him to do, and apparently the judge was miffed when he didn't on Wednesday. He decided for whatever reason not to turn on his teammates, and he's going to sit in prison for a few months as a result.
 
He refused leniency on the basis that he reckoned this was not an isolated incident. I'm not a lawyer. He could be within his legal rights to do that. I still do not like the idea of judges having that kind of leeway in general.

As for judges not saying such things without good reason, well, I think that is a naive assumption, tbh. Judges can and do do crass, idiotic things all the time.

Perhaps, but I'd put more money on the judge having evidence than not (pardon my alluding to a pun).

I'm not looking to turn this into an argument, as to be honest it's a bit of a trivial point and no-one seems to have any firm idea of the detail (hence I don't firmly hold any position), but I'm not sure of your basis in saying the judge doesn't have evidence to make that assertion. My expectation would be that he would, or he's leaving himself a little open under appeal.

I suspect this'll firm up in time.
 
I don't want an argument either, but as a point of law, if something hasn't been tested in a court with the defendants able to challenge it, it isn't evidence as far as I know. That's the whole point of a court. And the only cases against these three were the ones relating to the no-balling last year.
 
I don't want an argument either, but as a point of law, if something hasn't been tested in a court with the defendants able to challenge it, it isn't evidence as far as I know. That's the whole point of a court. And the only cases against these three were the ones relating to the no-balling last year.

I would suspect, as part of proving that money the cricketers were found with were bribes, that the prosecution would attempt to show a pattern of behaviour. I vaguely recall something about monies being received as payment for opening an ice cream parlour. If the trail of cash extends beyond that, the 'ice cream' defence falls a bit flat.

Complete and utter guesswork, but, in common with the point you're making, I'd be surprised if the judge was allowed to pull it out of his hat. As before, I suppose time and the appeal will tell.

Anyway, even if one-off, imprisonment seems appropriate as some people have been defrauded out of quite a lot of money. A bit intimidated by the lengths of sentence, but I've no real idea what they should be. I almost fell into the Daily Mail modus operandi of wondering why some muggers get less, but I'm not sure what equivalent frauds - if there is such a thing - usually get.
 
Did they get caught and tried in Britain?

I think the sentences are harsh but i have to say I support the message that if you get caught match fixing in sport in the UK, you face signifciant penalties.

I assume they will appeal the sentences.

No, they didn't. But I've been trying to think of an equivalent here of Cronje. There is no cricketing equivalent. The closest sporting equivalent I can think of would be Bobby Moore. If Bobby Moore had been done for fixing matches in, say, 1974, or some other time after he had already become a national icon. Would Bobby Moore have been treated as harshly as Butt by a British court?

And then compare and contrast other sports. John Higgins, for instance. Why were no criminal proceedings brought against him? Why is he still in the sport? He claimed intimidation, as Amir did. He claimed, ludicrously, that he feared for his life. The snooker authorities accepted his absurd story, but would the courts have? And unlike Amir, who did it for £2.5, Higgins was offered 500,000 euros. In that same sport, Quintin Hann was banned for 8 years for accepting money to throw a match. Again, no criminal proceedings against him.

I can see this going down very badly in Pakistan. And perhaps not without cause.

A separate point perhaps, but this is also blatant entrapment. They're guilty, guilty as sin, but if this had been a police operation rather than a newspaper operation, the case would have been thrown out.
 
Also Kieren Fallon had a case thrown out of court. It would have been interesting if he had been found guilty what the penalty would have been.

Good point re: John Higgins, had forgotten about him.
 
That video of Higgins smirking when told of the amount of money he was going to get still sticks in my craw. Fearing for his life? Yeah right.
 
Technically, did Higgins actually engage in match-fixing, though, given that those getting him to fix it were hoaxers and so no actual betting took place on that basis?

Well dodgy, though, I can't believe he was allowed to carry on playing.
 
The case for which these three were convicted was a hoax! By the very same newspaper, in fact.

Higgins never went on to throw the match or get the payment. He did agree to it, however. As I said before, Jimmy fucking Hill to his story about fearing for his life.
 
Ah, right, the lack of payment and lack of action probably means little or no criminal action actually took place. You can't really prosecute somebody for lying about intending to do something criminal, only for conspiring to actually do it. Hard to prove that he really intended to throw the match.

If this one was a hoax too (I'd missed that, somehow), then are the hoaxers not also guilty of committing a crime?
 
Conspiracy is a crime too. Conspiracy to commit fraud, surely. And in the case of Higgins, he flew to Kiev to discuss it. He flew to Kiev to discuss match fixing, then claimed he feared for his life. wtf was he doing in Kiev except to discuss match fixing? Was he there on holiday?
 
Conspiracy is a crime too. Conspiracy to commit fraud, surely.
What can you actually prove Higgins was conspiring to do, though? He can't be defrauding the ones who want the match fixed, because you can't legally contract to do something illegal, hence no fraud is involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom