Disgusting failure of the law

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the face of it it looks completely unfair. In the context of the current looters being jailed, I'd much rather see people like this **** serve time in jail than someone who's committed theft.
 
Four years for a drunken, tasteless joke on facebook compared to this shows just how ****ed up the justice system is
 
Yet again, another knee-jerk reaction without knowing the full facts, in this case, of what was said in the Sentencing hearing, and more importantly, what wasn't said in the hearing. For example, was there a pre-sentence report, and what were the contents of that? Was this a guilty plea, or had the matter gone to trial, which would affect the sentencing?

I note that the judge's reasons for passing that sentence are not contained within the report. Judge's are under a duty to give their reasons. The report doesn't even name the judge in question!

Reading the Sentencing Guidelines, I can only assume that the offence was considered a Category 3 level offence, in which case, he's got the maximum prison sentence. Suspending it is not as unusual as people think. However, I would prefer to read the reasoning behind the sentence, rather than the reactions of an understandably angry/upset victim or relative.

I have said it before, and I shall say it again, if you have any issues with the Criminal Justice System, go and see it in action. Try and make the time to see sentencing taking place, and get a fuller picture. Friday mornings are usually the best time for sentencing, but the Courtserve website gives listings for Crown Courts in England and Wales.
 
Yet again, somebody jumps in to defend "their Trade".

How can you possibly justify this lout not ending up behind bars?
If it was bloke on bloke, there may be a bit of grey area, but a bloke on a women.
Sorry, but he should be behind bars. Show some remorse behind there and I might agree with his repenting.
 
Leesoh said:
Yet again, another knee-jerk reaction without knowing the full facts, in this case, of what was said in the Sentencing hearing, and more importantly, what wasn't said in the hearing. For example, was there a pre-sentence report, and what were the contents of that? Was this a guilty plea, or had the matter gone to trial, which would affect the sentencing?

I note that the judge's reasons for passing that sentence are not contained within the report. Judge's are under a duty to give their reasons. The report doesn't even name the judge in question!

Reading the Sentencing Guidelines, I can only assume that the offence was considered a Category 3 level offence, in which case, he's got the maximum prison sentence. Suspending it is not as unusual as people think. However, I would prefer to read the reasoning behind the sentence, rather than the reactions of an understandably angry/upset victim or relative.

I have said it before, and I shall say it again, if you have any issues with the Criminal Justice System, go and see it in action. Try and make the time to see sentencing taking place, and get a fuller picture. Friday mornings are usually the best time for sentencing, but the Courtserve website gives listings for Crown Courts in England and Wales.
Click to expand...

This is all very lovely, however I have absolutely no respect or faith in a legal system that allows someone to repeatedly punch a woman in the face in public resulting in a fractures jaw without sending them away. A suspended sentence may not be that uncommon, in this case that is the problem.

I bet the lad who did it is in as much shock as anyone else should be.
 
Leesoh said:
Yet again, another knee-jerk reaction without knowing the full facts
Click to expand...

My comment was aimed more at the absurd sentence handed down to the arsehole that made a drunken joke on facebook, rather than this case.
I don't doubt that this does fall within the sentencing guidelines, but that just highlights the indefensible sentences handed out recently after the riots which was more to do with playing to the baying mob than delivering justice
 
H T B said:
Yet again, somebody jumps in to defend "their Trade".

How can you possibly justify this lout not ending up behind bars?
If it was bloke on bloke, there may be a bit of grey area, but a bloke on a women.
Sorry, but he should be behind bars. Show some remorse behind there and I might agree with his repenting.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've read my post, and digested it properly, but I haven't justified anything. I am not in possession of all of the facts etc to form the opinion that it is or is not justified.

Lako42 said:
This is all very lovely, however I have absolutely no respect or faith in a legal system that allows someone to repeatedly punch a woman in the face in public resulting in a fractures jaw without sending them away. A suspended sentence may not be that uncommon, in this case that is the problem.

I bet the lad who did it is in as much shock as anyone else should be.
Click to expand...

The Sentencing Guidelines were reviewed and changed this year, for your information.

Seeing as people are comparing one situation with a totally unrelated situation, My comment was aimed more at the absurd sentence handed down to the arsehole that made a drunken joke on facebook, rather than this case.
I don't doubt that this does fall within the sentencing guidelines, but that just highlights the indefensible sentences handed out recently after the riots which was more to do with playing to the baying mob than delivering justice[/QUOTE]

The way the riots have been dealt with is totally unprecedented, and I would argue, questionable. Considering these types of offences would have taken a couple of months to go through the system if committed in isolation, processing them within days leaves some cases open to mistakes.

As for the sentences themselves, I've read reports and comments suggesting that judges have been "setting an example", and hiding behind policy to give disproportionate sentences. And don't get me started on magistrates....
 
Leesoh said:
Yet again, another knee-jerk reaction without knowing the full facts, in this case, of what was said in the Sentencing hearing, and more importantly, what wasn't said in the hearing. For example, was there a pre-sentence report, and what were the contents of that? Was this a guilty plea, or had the matter gone to trial, which would affect the sentencing?

I note that the judge's reasons for passing that sentence are not contained within the report. Judge's are under a duty to give their reasons. The report doesn't even name the judge in question!

Reading the Sentencing Guidelines, I can only assume that the offence was considered a Category 3 level offence, in which case, he's got the maximum prison sentence. Suspending it is not as unusual as people think. However, I would prefer to read the reasoning behind the sentence, rather than the reactions of an understandably angry/upset victim or relative.

I have said it before, and I shall say it again, if you have any issues with the Criminal Justice System, go and see it in action. Try and make the time to see sentencing taking place, and get a fuller picture. Friday mornings are usually the best time for sentencing, but the Courtserve website gives listings for Crown Courts in England and Wales.
Click to expand...

No excuse whatsoever, jail him and make an example
 
H T B said:
Yet again, somebody jumps in to defend "their Trade".

How can you possibly justify this lout not ending up behind bars?.
Click to expand...


On the evidence of what we are told in the report, it looks as though he got away lightly. But the judge will have heard much more than this; and I am sure there is much more to it. Other than the fact that he was remorseful, we know nothing about any plea in mitigation that might have been made.

One thing that seems odd to me is that after the woman had had the burger thrown at her, after she had been punched three times, she remained in the same place as the bloke and "asked him his name with a view to reporting him". Now if the same thing had happened to me, I would be making sure that there was the greatest distance possible between me and the person who had just attacked me. With the attacker apparently in the burger bar and not trying to make good an escape, I would be dialling 999 to get the police there rather than putting myself in further danger. Yes - odd - and more to the case than we have had from a very one-sided report.

Let's see if the DPP appeals the sentence. If he doesn't, we have to presume that he thinks it's within the right range for the offence.
 
bocadillo said:
Let's see if the DPP appeals the sentence. If he doesn't, we have to presume that he thinks it's within the right range for the offence.
Click to expand...

For, against, to? :102:
 
Thank you, Leesoh, for being one of TB's most sensible posters. It warms my heart.

Is there not a way to read indictments and judgements online? That would be great for transparency and people could make up their own mind. www.icty.org is great for that but clearly there's a bit of a difference there as they are former politicians or generals indicted for genocide and not drunks who smashed women up at McDonalds (although who knows what Mladić was up to during those years he went missing).

I hate Daily Mail with a passion by the way.
 
SwedeFox said:
Thank you, Leesoh, for being one of TB's most sensible posters. It warms my heart.

Is there not a way to read indictments and judgements online? That would be great for transparency and people could make up their own mind. www.icty.org is great for that but clearly there's a bit of a difference there as they are former politicians or generals indicted for genocide and not drunks who smashed women up at McDonalds (although who knows what Mladić was up to during those years he went missing).

I hate Daily Mail with a passion by the way.
Click to expand...

Thank you :)

Most day to day stuff never really sees the light of day. It is possible to get transcripts, for a fee. There are some subscriber only websites, and http://www.bailii.org/form/search_cases.html reports some cases, but these are usually appeals etc. It means having to rely on reports in the local paper, which can be selective in what is printed.

I was actually expecting someone to say that incidents like this further the case for cameras in court, something that I'm not very keen on, believe it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top