Little Britain likes prison, where hopefully life means life and prisoners don't get Sky telly or hot showers.
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.I think this is playing to a much wider audience than little britain
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.
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 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.
In saying that, the sentences seem - to my admittedly untrained eye - as being quite stiff.
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.
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.
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.
How can he be 'satisfied' about that without having the evidence for it tested in a 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.Conspiracy is a crime too. Conspiracy to commit fraud, surely.