Readers of this blog may be interested to know where persecuted satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz stands now in terms of her appeal against her recent conviction and sentence.
After yesterday’s failure of her application for bail pending appeal, Alison remains incarcerated at Bronzefield Prison near Heathrow Airport.
In previous blog posts about Alison’s predicament, I have written (correctly) that, taking account of the usual 50% discount on sentences, as well as time taken off for days spent in police custody, at trial etc, and also the 4 days taken off for time served prior to Alison’s successful previous appeal (in 2020), she might expect release in any case by the end of May.
The above calculations, though correct in themselves, left out the effect of the now-ubiquitous “early release on tag” programme, via which prisoners are now commonly released at even earlier stages and monitored by electronic tags usually attached to the leg above the ankle.
Usually-reliable sources inform me that Alison Chabloz is likely (though that is not absolutely definite) to be released “on tag” by about 26 April 2021, so (if that is so) only about 9 days from now.
After release, whether “on tag” or otherwise, Alison will be monitored until the end of the period of the original full 18-week sentence handed down on 31 March 2021, i.e. until early August 2021; during that period, Alison can be recalled to prison, contingent on various circumstances. If that were to happen, she would probably remain incarcerated until August.
Alison Chabloz is continuing with her appeal, however. It might be thought, from a purely individual point of view, that Alison’s appeal has little point, in view of the fact that she may soon be released anyway. However such observation leaves out consideration of various facts.
Firstly, Alison will no doubt want to make her point that what she said in podcasts about the Jew-Zionist etc was not “grossly offensive” anyway. Secondly, she may wish to have quashed her second “criminal” (political-criminal) conviction. Third, she may wish to head off (if possible) any upcoming nuisance.
At the bail application yesterday, held at Southwark Crown Court, H.H. Judge Tomlinson, presiding, said that that “she received nothing like the maximum...”, which was arguably true, inasmuch as the maximum is 6 months, i.e. 26 weeks. Still, what sort of society imprisons socio-political satirists and commentators at all?
An appeal from the Magistrates’ Court to Crown Court consists of a complete rehearing, in effect a duplicate trial.
If, at the appeal hearing, Alison Chabloz succeeds, and the appeal is upheld, then fine. The conviction will be quashed, and the sentence will fall. Quaestio cadet.
If, on the other hand, Alison’s appeal fails, then the Crown Court has the power to substitute a different sentence, whether longer or shorter. If shorter than the one passed by the Magistrates’ Court, then she would probably be released immediately; if longer, then the length of her actual imprisonment will, unsurprisingly, depend on the length of the term passed. The Crown Court can only sentence, at such an appeal, up to the maximum that was available to the lower court, i.e. (in this case) 6 months.
If Alison’s appeal fails, and if she then is sentenced to the maximum available (which is unlikely, in my opinion), then she will still be out before too long: 6 months, minus the usual 50% discount, is 3 months. That must be taken minus the 1 month already served (assuming that Alison is released before May). It must also be taken minus the ~2 weeks of other custody, time at trial etc in both 2021 and 2020. That would leave about 6 weeks to be served.
In other words, even if Alison’s appeal fails, and even if she then is sentenced to the maximum 6 months, she would in fact serve only a further 6 weeks (and might even be released “on tag” before that).
When an appeal from Magistrates’ Court to Crown Court fails, not uncommonly the Crown Court does not interfere with the length of the original sentence. If that were to happen in this case, Alison would have about another 3 weeks to serve, but might in fact be released “on tag” almost at once.
Alison Chabloz may be in somewhat difficult circumstances now, but the end is in sight.
For someone in prison, even serving a short sentence, letters, cards and books are welcome reminders of the outside world, of friendship and Kameradschaft:
Alison Chabloz, A6478EK,
Books sent should be *new, *paperback and preferably (though not necessarily) sent via online vendors [important update: Bronzefield now do not accept Amazon deliveries but will accept books from elsewhere]
For “government in power” read “ZOG” (“Zionist Occupation Government”).
It seems almost cruel to write that I beat John Rentoul yet again, this week scoring 5/10 compared to his shockingly bad 1/10, but as always I give Rentoul full marks for honesty. In fact I nearly scored 7/10, but just could not bring to mind the answers (which I basically knew) to questions 4 and 6; I had no clue about questions 3, 5, and 10.
A strange-seeming woman, looking in her Twitter profile like Boris Johnson in drag, mentions me when replying to a barrister presently being attacked:
Tweeter “Testy Tracy” should read my own account, not the twistedly-false version put out by the Bar Standards Board and the Jewish-Zionist lobby: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/.
I might add that that barrister’s reply (not shown above because I seem to have technical problems today in copying and pasting tweets) misspelled “cite” as “site”, but I suppose that anyone can make a typo…
Not sure why I am wasting my time, perhaps because “Testy Tracy” is so typical of many UK Twitter users (ignorant, judgmental, yet probably considering herself both educated and intelligent because she attended a “university” —see below—. She seems to lack any understanding of issues), but anyway…
So “Testy Tracy” has “degrees”! No doubt “McDegrees” from a “McUniversity”. Her ignorance about the Bar is patent, which (of course) does not prevent her from having strong opinions about things which she quite obviously fails to understand.
Would you give a silly ignorant woman like that a job? I wouldn’t. I think that that barrister, Yalland (whom I do not know) replied rather politely to what seems to be a semi-crazed creature.