YouTubers have waded in with their views on "the Jimmy Savile of trolling" Alex Belfield after he was sentenced to more than five years in prison, and now plans to appeal. Former BBC DJ Belfield was jailed in September after he was found guilty of waging a relentless stalking campaign against BBC Radio Northampton's Bernie Keith, and subjecting TV presenter Jeremy Vine to an "avalanche of hatred".
During his trial, Belfield, 42, of Shaldon Close in Mapperley, opted not to give evidence in his defence before giving a closing speech, in which he claimed he was a whistleblower who had seen two-and-a-half years of his life “torn apart” by police inquiries.
READ MORE: Jury's verdicts delivered in stalking trial of ex-BBC presenter Alex Belfield
The prosecution said the YouTuber's stalking was more akin to 'internet trolling' than physical stalking, sending emails, tweets or making videos and subjecting victims to harassment and abuse - some of them over the course of many years. Belfield was described as a broadcaster who has worked in the media all his life.
He started out as a broadcast assistant on local radio and then became a radio presenter himself. In more recent years, he had set up his own channel on YouTube. He was convicted of 4 charges - two were alternatives of "simple stalking".
After lodging an appeal, Daniel ShenSmith, as seen on YouTube as the BlackBeltBarrister, Barrister, Mediator, and Director at ShenSmith Law, Sutton Coldfield, explained the legal process for his 251,000 subscribers.
"The Court of Appeal said this is at its very early stages," he said to camera. "All of this came to light at a hearing with the trial judge in respect of an error during Belfield's sentencing, particularly in respect of count five; that was the charge in respect to Bernie Keith.
"Now, Alex Belfield was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in respect of this, but it turns out the court was advised that the maximum sentence was five years, when in fact the maximum is ten years.
"But the trial judge, Mr Justice Saini, said that the Crown made no submission that this sentence was inappropriate or unduly lenient, going on to say, bearing in mind the need for overall proportionate sentence and the principle of totality, he was not satisfied that the final sentence of five years and 26 weeks would have been substantially higher, had he been made aware of the correct legal position with respect to count five.
"Now this comment itself might prove very relevant if permission to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal hearing goes ahead. Because some of you felt that Alex Belfield's sentence was too lenient and others of you felt it was too harsh. But given the Court of Appeal said this application is still in its very early stages, it's impossible to comment any further.
"Now, when one is convicted in the crown court one can appeal against conviction, against sentence or against both, so in this case, it appears Alex Belfield is appealing against sentence. Now, it is important to understand, there is no automatic right of appeal against sentence from the crown court.
"Unlike some of you may be aware there is an automatic right of appeal from the magistrates' court to the crown court, whereby, the crown court will conduct a rehearing effectively of the trial from the magistrates' court, only it is with a judge and two magistrates, not a judge and a jury in the way of an appeal hearing.
"But in the crown court, there is no automatic right to appeal against sentence. There must be a good reason; known as grounds or grounds of appeal. For example, if there was an error in the law or procedural irregularity, for example, the crown court passed a sentence which was not permissable for that particular offence, then someone could appeal against sentence on that basis - but that doesn't appear to be the case here.
Read more: BBC issues statement amid calls for investigation after Alex Belfield jailed
"Secondly, somebody could apply for permission to appeal, if it appears to them the sentence was too long. That would seem to be the case here, although I haven't had any details confirmed.
"It is also important to understand this is generally a fairly high threshold and the court must be satisfied that the sentence was out of all proportion in the cirumstances with respect to the offence, the offender, and everything else. Finally, it is also open to the prosecution to appeal against sentence if the crown believes the sentence was too short. But given the comments in court, that isn't obviously the case here.
"Once an application for appeal has been submitted, a High Court judge will consider the documents available and decide whether or not to grant permission, sometimes referred to as "leave" - "leave to appeal is the same as permission to appeal".
"If permission or leave to appeal is granted, then the appeal is heard orally with a three-judge court. If, on the other hand, permission is refused, then the application for permission can be renewed orally, before again a three-judge court.
"Although it is also important for anybody applying for permission to appeal to remember that if an application to appeal or a renewed oral application for permission to appeal is deemed to be wholly without merit, in that there is no real merit in the application or renewed oral application at all, the judge can make a loss of time direction under sections 29 and 31 of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1968.
"This means that a specific amount of time has already been spent in custody will no longer count towards their sentence".
ChilliJonCarne makes videos helping viewers understand the rules of the TV licence and how to cancel. And he talks about the latest news out there in TV land and the odd random story too.
On his channel, with 65,000 subscribers, he asks: "Alex Belfield Sentencing Too Lenient?"
"I don't talk about him a lot on this channel, even though we moved in the same YouTube circles for a while a few years ago, didn't we, me and Alex Belfield both bashing the BBC won't we," he says.
"Man went a little bit further than I'm prepared to go to do the job - but good for him nonetheless. But he stumbled across this because apparently he's um well look at the headline look 'YouTuber plans appeal against stalking jail sentence', so not exactly breaking news right?
"We all knew he was going to appeal the sentence but the interesting bit in here is that he was actually under-sentenced, which I thought was interesting so could his appeal backfire? And he could get his sentence lengthened? Is that a thing that can happen?"
In a letter to the Victims' Commissioner for London in October, Solicitor General Michael Tomlinson said he agreed the judge made an error, adding: "The sentence may be unduly lenient."
READ MORE: Criticism over building 'lit up like Christmas tree' amid crisis
Mr Tomlinson said the case was re-listed before the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Saini, where he "agreed that there had been an error in his approach to sentencing" but opted not to alter the sentence. In the judge's ruling, where he accepted the error, he said he was "misinformed" by the prosecution about the maximum sentence available to him on one of the counts Belfield was convicted of.
Mr Justice Saini said it was "regrettable that this was not drawn to my attention earlier", adding: "Mr (John) McGuiness KC, leading counsel for the Crown, has provided a frank and gracious apology to the court, which I accept. This was an oversight."
The judge said he did not alter the sentence given to Belfield because it would have only been "modestly" higher and the "overall sentence fairly reflects the totality and seriousness of all the offending." London’s Victims' Commissioner, Claire Waxman, wrote back to Mr Tomlinson to express her "deep disappointment" the case could not be referred under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme due to a 28-day time limit on referrals.
She said Belfield’s case proved "injustice within the ULS scheme continues" and the "current system is simply not fit for purpose". Jurors accepted Belfield caused serious alarm or distress to two victims and found him guilty of "simple" stalking in relation to Channel 5 and BBC Radio 2 presenter Mr Vine and theatre blogger Philip Dehany.
The Solicitor General concluded by saying: "The matter was listed before the sentencing judge on October 21 and, although he agreed that there had been an error in his approach to sentencing, he declined to interfere with the sentence. I understand that the offender is seeking to appeal the sentence and, if he does so, my office will request that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) draws the sentencing error to the court’s attention."
READ NEXT:
Jeremy Vine suffered 'Olympic level stalking' by presenter, court hears
Alex Belfield claimed radio station had 'refused' to mention Manchester terrorist attack
Stalker Alex Belfield has shelled out '£300,000 already' on his legal case
YouTube still hosts convicted stalker Alex Belfield's videos
Ex-BBC DJ Alex Belfield accused of stalking tells jury he is the victim of a ‘witch-hunt’
