No you don't, not if you do it now - if you read the judges comments then that is highlighted very well.

have missed that part, care to expand?

It's got to be based on the law and sentences as they were at the time though.

Yes it's probably not enough, but he's 84, ill according to the judge's remarks (and his records and a report will be sent to the Prison Service, suggesting it isn't a minor thing) so I'd guess he's unlikely to see the light of day again.

does that make any difference, the fact he might die in jail just means he's going to be more expensive to keep, he should have to pay for his day to day care and needs, sorry, but child molestation is the absolute lowest. I can almost forgive murder as a crime of passion, but touching up kids, there can be no reasonable mitigation.

He was sentenced based on when the offences took place. Had they have happened more recently he may well have been looking at a much larger sentence.

It should also be noted that sentencing guidelines are just that - guidelines for the judges to decide upon the length of the sentence, the sentencing guidelines for magistrates for example is available to browse on the web, search for "the bench book" and you'll find that it contains dozens upon dozens of pages of guidelines for sentencing all sorts of offences with all sorts of variations depending on the circumstances of each individual case, its not as simple as "He carried a knife therefore its five years" despite what the tabloids would like everyone to believe.

I would imagine that the guidelines for High Court judges would be similar and reading the judgement its obvious that he took into account quite a bit of mitigation and that he was a little frustrated that he couldn't apply today's tariffs.

All in all I think its a reasonable result.

So, if it was one of yours, you'd feel the same?

Whether it's 5 years or 25 years, his life outside of prison will be a sentence in itself. If he lives to see the day he is due for release that is. No one will want to be associated with him, his reputation is now in tatters.

A friend of mine who owns an art gallery only commented the other day that a woman had been in to buy a painting to replace an original Rolf Harris painting she'd taken down in light of the trial. We were looking at Rolf Harris artworks for sale on ebay today and one seller has added to his listing of 3 prints - *** REDUCED IN PRICE - THESE NEED TO GO ***

Nope, but thats not how the law works, victims statements are a small part of sentencing and can be taken into account but will still not affect the overwhelming reason why historical sex abuse trials result in what some perceive to be small sentences - the fact that they are sentenced according to guidelines prevailing at the time of the offences is the overwhelming reason.

In the case of Rolf Harris I must admit to being slightly in agreement with LGJM in that one of the victims has claimed in her statement that the whole of her life has been ruined by what Harris did to her, her alcoholism and the fact that she has never held down a job in her life so far is all blamed on what Harris did to her - and yet she allowed the abuse to continue for several years and on several occasions and on into an age when she certainly could act for herself as an adult - for me that doesn't seem to add up and your mantra of "personal responsibility" could easily be applied here.

I agree and the victim statement from the one who was 7 or 8 at the time is hard to believe as it apparently at took away here childhood, left her an angry child and unable to trust men. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't but how you can connect the two is hard to see. She was at most 8 years old, what happened was a one off (and yes highly improper and disgusting) grope but I can't help thinking if you are asked to say how it affected you then you will think of something to say.

The judge has treated the statement as the gospel truth though which I also find disturbing as a general principle. Because the accused has been fond guilty the victim's impact statement is taken as read without challenge.