old salut!

Colin Randall wrote here on France, things Anglo-French and more......but has moved

December 04, 2006

Nathalie Gettliffe stays in jail

This site has now moved to Salut!

Nathalie Gettliffe was sentenced tonight to a term that means she will spend a further six months in jail.

The sentence was 16 months. I know little more about a decision that naturally disappoints me and confounds those confident Canadian voices that spoke of a likely release.

In particular, I do not know how the sentence squares with the "credit" scheme for time spent in custody awaiting trial.

It appears that the judge made allowance for only part of the time served. She (the judge) did not, however, go as far as urged by the prosecution, which wanted a sentence that would have kept Gettliffe incarcerated - with or without baby son - for a further 14 months

Gettliffe's continued detention, wrong as I keep saying she was to abduct two of her children in a bitter matrimonial/custody dispute, seems to me to be of value to no one. And least of all does it appear to serve the interests of the children the courts repeatedly said were their main concern.

When I do know more, I will have more to say, though I may wish to wait for more information about the sentencing hearing.

Oh, and the flagship 8pm news programme of France's private TF1 channel was only 15 or 20 minutes behind me with the news.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

This site has now moved to Salut!


At December 04, 2006 8:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I only caught the end of the news saying that she might be transfered to France to work out her sentence and that the children would stay with their father until they are old enough to decide in which country they wish to live.

At December 04, 2006 8:27 PM, Blogger Colin Randall said...

I'd heard about the prison transfer possibility, but the TF1 report also said the future was far from clear.

At December 04, 2006 10:06 PM, Blogger Bill Taylor said...

You cannot (or shouldn't) anthropomorphize a national judicial system. It makes no sense to speculate that Canada's is suffering from wounded pride - a statement that is both outrageous and ridiculous. What comes most clearly from your blog is that you don't know what is going on or what the reasons behind this custodial sentence are. It might have reflected better upon your dignity if you had contented yourself with announcing the sentence today and then waited (rather than saying you may wait) until more is revealed, including where Nathalie Gettliffe will serve her time. Or are you being driven by your own wounded pride?

At December 05, 2006 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Including the time served from April 11th the sentence, probation, and restrictions on visition that will be placed upon Ms Gettliffe, compounded by the distance from British Columbia to France, Nathalie Gettliffe's children Jose and Max will be effectively punished by the British Columbia Court by their separation from their mother for four years and 2 months. Whether or not it was the intent to punish the children Judge Koenigsberg, as a representative of the British Columbia legal system has scucceeded in doing just that. If the courts intent was to heal the wounds of the childrens separation fom their father its action taken against Ms. Gettliffe have guaranteed that the pain for all consider will continue. Preferring revenge Judge Koenigberg abjured mercy and the best interest of everyone concerned and chose punishment and seperation for Ms Getliffe and her children and almost certainly guaranteed, when they receive all of the facts of the case, that they will indeed continue to hate their father. The quality of mercy has been strained, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been chosen by Canada. Shame! Canada..

At December 05, 2006 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can she appeal? Should she appeal?

As far as the children are concerned, I imagine much depends when they are allowed to make their own choice - is it 18 or can they choose earlier? I believe that children can now take a lawyer to plead their case in such circumstances. This may sound silly, but as a divorced Mum, my children fortunately or unfortunately had to grow up much quicker than children from a two parent home and at the age of 12-13 were more than capable of deciding who they wanted to live with - this of course may change later on and courts should take this into consideration - no child should be obliged to live with one parent all their life if both parents can offer more or less the same stability, but we come back to the black and nasty side of divorce where most parents are too busy nursing their own egos instead of worrying about helping their children to develop into strong adults.

At December 05, 2006 12:39 PM, Blogger Colin Randall said...

The Gettliffe posting went through several changes as more news filtered through, leaving Bill's comment looking as though he was attacking something I hadn't said. Apologies. In fact, successive judges in this case, and the prosecutor, made pointed reference to the affront to Canada's system of justice that her actions represented. Or should that be systems, to take account of other provinces where courts reach decisions Bill chooses not to defend?

At December 05, 2006 2:35 PM, Blogger Bill Taylor said...

As I freely acknowledged in a previous post, the verdict in the other case was as baffling as it was indefensible. The whole country was and remains outraged by it. But I repeat that it is impossible and utterly wrong to try to compare that with the Gettliffe verdict. Nor do comments about an affront to the justice system equate with wounded pride. Canada has nothing to be ashamed of in its handling of this difficult case.


Post a Comment

<< Home