3 ms·

I'm from the US, so please forgive my ignorance of UK law in this regard, but is this case special at all because the target of the insult was knighted (or what

I'm from the US, so please forgive my ignorance of UK law in this regard, but is this case special at all because the target of the insult was knighted (or whatever the correct term is)? Would it have been the same result if the target was a "random" non-knighted individual?

dan-robertson 5y ago
That sort of thing generally shouldn’t make a difference in the U.K. But in this case I think the law gives special protection to public figures and I guess people who are knighted tend to be public figures. It used to be the case that peers (ie lords) had a somewhat different treatment in the law: they would be tried for crimes in the House of Lords instead of a regular court. The idea of that seems more reasonable the further back in time you go as the nobility had more power. However that is not the case anymore either. It continues to be the case that the justice system is more accessible to some people than others and having better access likely correlates with the probability that one is knighted.
matthewheath 5y ago
The target being a "public figure" might well have factored into the Crown Office's decision to prosecute, as part of the public interest test under the Prosecution Code. If the target were a random member of the public, it seems that the offence would still be made out (he would still be found guilty) but perhaps the sentencing would be less severe. It does seem that judicial discretion was thrown to the wind here. I don't agree that the sentencing reflects the gravity of the offence, given the mitigating circumstances raised by his defence counsel.