SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Like Andrew Windsor, Mandelson is being investigated for misconduct in public office - corruption - rather than any sexual offences. If found guilty, there is unlikely to be scope for plea bargaining.
MoveAlong · 70-79, M
@SunshineGirl Possibly not, but if there is plea bargaining usually includes all criminal activities you may have been involved in. Not necessarily just the crime you are pleading to. At least two of the women have claimed Andrew had girls brought to the UK to service him. I don't know what kind of statutes are in force in the UK but they are probably different than in the US.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SunshineGirl @MoveAlong
I don't think UK Law includes plea-bargaining; but it allows mitigation.
Pleading guilty is usually mitigation and the sentencing may also take any previous convictions into account, but neither the defence nor prosecution can set or even request the sentence. The trial is on the present charge, not previous convictions, and I think those are inadmissible as "evidence".
The Judge in a Crown Court, or Magistrates in a lower Court, determine the sentence, helped by Statutes, case-law and sentencing-guidelines, and if necessary by external reports; so may be deferred to a later sentencing hearing. It is then that previous convictions may affect the sentence.
Other countries allow the prosecutors or plaintiff* to request the nature and severity of sentence, but not the UK. "Victim Impact Statements" may be admitted, but I think prior to sentence, not earlier. They are not evidence.
Another vital difference from many other nations is that USA and UK Law assume innocence unless and until a ple of Guilty, or guilt proven in Court; with the burden of proof on the prosecution not defence.
..........
The question of the woman (two women now?) is odd. How does anyone in an open country order a woman to fly to another continent to have sex with a man she's never met? If she really didn't want to go she would have had ample opportunity to refuse, if only by "losing" her passport.
''''''''
*plaintiff. Or victim, in plain English. I think the term "plaintiff" applies in civil-law, not criminal-case hearings; but I forget the latter's equivalent.
I don't think UK Law includes plea-bargaining; but it allows mitigation.
Pleading guilty is usually mitigation and the sentencing may also take any previous convictions into account, but neither the defence nor prosecution can set or even request the sentence. The trial is on the present charge, not previous convictions, and I think those are inadmissible as "evidence".
The Judge in a Crown Court, or Magistrates in a lower Court, determine the sentence, helped by Statutes, case-law and sentencing-guidelines, and if necessary by external reports; so may be deferred to a later sentencing hearing. It is then that previous convictions may affect the sentence.
Other countries allow the prosecutors or plaintiff* to request the nature and severity of sentence, but not the UK. "Victim Impact Statements" may be admitted, but I think prior to sentence, not earlier. They are not evidence.
Another vital difference from many other nations is that USA and UK Law assume innocence unless and until a ple of Guilty, or guilt proven in Court; with the burden of proof on the prosecution not defence.
..........
The question of the woman (two women now?) is odd. How does anyone in an open country order a woman to fly to another continent to have sex with a man she's never met? If she really didn't want to go she would have had ample opportunity to refuse, if only by "losing" her passport.
''''''''
*plaintiff. Or victim, in plain English. I think the term "plaintiff" applies in civil-law, not criminal-case hearings; but I forget the latter's equivalent.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
That would not happen in British law. Being an informant is not a guarantee of no prison term, though it might be seen as a mitigating circumstance, along with a plea of guilty and genuine emorse.
However, we must not get ahead of things.
Nobody has been charged with any offence, only arrested under caution and investigation.
Even if charged, a person is assumed innocent until and unless a Court of Law finds otherwise, on the grounds of clear evidence. Or of course pleads guilty: quite a lot of serious cases do end with the defendant realising he or she can no longer pretend innocence.
What IS being asked in the UK is who persuaded the government at the time, to appoint two people unfit to be trade envoy and ambassador to those roles. That's not suggesting any criminal offence, more likely incompetence and gullibility.
(Peter Mandelson was Britain's Trade Commissioner to the European Union, for Tony Blair's Labour government; after time as Blair's "Director of Communications".... whatever one of those does... then MP. Yet he was a career politician, who'd never run a business or worked as a civil-servant in any industry-relevant ministry in his life!
Nor had ex-Trade Envoy, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, though as a non-politician he had at least served in the real world, first in the Army then as an air-ambulance helicopter pilot. )
However, we must not get ahead of things.
Nobody has been charged with any offence, only arrested under caution and investigation.
Even if charged, a person is assumed innocent until and unless a Court of Law finds otherwise, on the grounds of clear evidence. Or of course pleads guilty: quite a lot of serious cases do end with the defendant realising he or she can no longer pretend innocence.
What IS being asked in the UK is who persuaded the government at the time, to appoint two people unfit to be trade envoy and ambassador to those roles. That's not suggesting any criminal offence, more likely incompetence and gullibility.
(Peter Mandelson was Britain's Trade Commissioner to the European Union, for Tony Blair's Labour government; after time as Blair's "Director of Communications".... whatever one of those does... then MP. Yet he was a career politician, who'd never run a business or worked as a civil-servant in any industry-relevant ministry in his life!
Nor had ex-Trade Envoy, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, though as a non-politician he had at least served in the real world, first in the Army then as an air-ambulance helicopter pilot. )
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
The UK arrests seems to have nothing to do with the sex thing, but with economic secrets illegally shared. Even more interesting will be if Epstein's purported ties to Israeli, US, and Russian intelligence agencies is fully investigated and revealed.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@ChipmunkErnie That's right, though no-one yet has been charged.
That won't happen until and unless the Police find sufficient evidence of law-breaking to stand examination in a Coyrt of Law (as normal legal practice); but the potential charge, "Misconduct in Public Office", can be wide-ranging.
If either man is charged, they may have a long wait for their trial due to a sizeable backlog in hearings.
Though not itself a matter of Law, Parliament is also wanting to know how and why Peter Mandelson was appointed an Ambassador. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's appointment as a trade-envoy was allegedly Mandelson's suggestion, more than twenty years ago.
That won't happen until and unless the Police find sufficient evidence of law-breaking to stand examination in a Coyrt of Law (as normal legal practice); but the potential charge, "Misconduct in Public Office", can be wide-ranging.
If either man is charged, they may have a long wait for their trial due to a sizeable backlog in hearings.
Though not itself a matter of Law, Parliament is also wanting to know how and why Peter Mandelson was appointed an Ambassador. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's appointment as a trade-envoy was allegedly Mandelson's suggestion, more than twenty years ago.
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
@ArishMell Much of it seems to depend on interpretation of the Official Secrets Act?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@ChipmunkErnie Possibly, but the Misconduct charge is a lot older than the Official Secrets Act, in fact it dates back some centuries.
There are different grades of confidentially under the OSA, but even if an official document is not Classified under that it is still the responsibility of any of its holders to maintain confidentality to only those authorised to read it, just as one would expect of an employee of a business.
So whether the OSA is involved would depend on the nature of the information and the act. Cases under the MPO name are not common anyway, but mainly financial corruption, undue personal connections, and wilful negligence.
.....
Edit:
By chance I have learnt a bit more about "Misconduct in Public Office". It is not rigidly defined Statute Law, but Common, or Case, Law; and can be used to cover situations not envisaged when it first surfaced. One of the biggest prosecutions under it was a financial-corruption case in the 1780s.
It also facing replacement by two new, Statute Laws.
There are different grades of confidentially under the OSA, but even if an official document is not Classified under that it is still the responsibility of any of its holders to maintain confidentality to only those authorised to read it, just as one would expect of an employee of a business.
So whether the OSA is involved would depend on the nature of the information and the act. Cases under the MPO name are not common anyway, but mainly financial corruption, undue personal connections, and wilful negligence.
.....
Edit:
By chance I have learnt a bit more about "Misconduct in Public Office". It is not rigidly defined Statute Law, but Common, or Case, Law; and can be used to cover situations not envisaged when it first surfaced. One of the biggest prosecutions under it was a financial-corruption case in the 1780s.
It also facing replacement by two new, Statute Laws.
BridgeOvertroubledWaters · 61-69, M
Sick people