OldAfricaHand

Another crazy sentence?

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214050/Model-glassed-BIT-bar-manager-drunken-rampage.html

 

 

Maybe I am just being my usual illiberal self but it strikes me that this case reported in the Daily Maul is another example of a crazy sentence.

 

The culprit was effectively brawling in a bar in the centre of Manchester (a very usual occurrence these days as the once giant officers of the Manchester City Police no longer exist to cow potential trouble-makers into good behaviour) but because she is an aspiring TV presenter and is going to university next month, she gets let off a custodial sentence and her compensation payments will, no doubt, be paid from her student loan?

 

For the love of common-sense, do judges not realise that being lenient and effectively treating the perpetrator significantly better than the victim was treated is a recipe for all those scrotes out there to stick their fingers up at :justice"!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ABH = let off with a stern warning in case the offender's career is affected!  FFS where is the punishment in the sentence and how much weight did the judge give to the effects of the assault on the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is the DM, but what media organisation in their right mind is going to employ somebody with that sort of 'previous' to be in front of the cameras?

 

 

I don't like to poopoo somebody's dreams and ambitions, 'cos that can be unkind...............but........really...........a TV news anchor?  Yeah. Having a criminal record is pretty mandatory for that role these day...........no.............wait.............

 

 

 

Glassed and bit people.  Classy lady.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the GMP I am surprised she did not get a 'Caution'.

If she has any future then the world has gone mad. She does not show any signs of class, and came before an ultra soft Judge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the chances of her actually getting to work on TV let alone to be a TV presenter meaning that she got given a very soft sentence on the off chance that her dream would actually become true.  It also doesn't seem to be a one off event given that she was also found guilty of assaulting a bouncer around the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't actually say, but on the basis that she had no previous and that she plead guilty, then for a guilty plea and first offence, I'd have been surprised if she received a custodial sentence.

She got six months suspended for two years. Doesn't seem that far out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't actually say, but on the basis that she had no previous and that she plead guilty, then for a guilty plea and first offence, I'd have been surprised if she received a custodial sentence.

She got six months suspended for two years. Doesn't seem that far out.

 

She was abusive and was ejected, She came back was again abusive and then smashed a glass into the female managers face causing injuries.She is scarred for life and could have been blinded. And she did have a previous history and conviction.

 

A very soft sentence for her conduct and 12 months should have been the minimum. Bar staff deserve protection, and, beli3eve me this conduct is not unusual in Manchester City Centre.

Edited by Zulu 22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once covered a court case many years ago where the defendant - an 18-yr-old female - had thrown a glass at another girl in a bar. According to the evidence the victim had spent much of the evening being verbally abusive towards the defendant who unfortunately snapped.

The defendant also pleaded guilty, she was also about to go to university, straight 'A' student, this was also a first offence, this was also supposedly completely out of character... Had never been in trouble, not even at school.

She went down for six months.

Still remember the look of shock on the prosecuting barrister's face - who had supported the defending barrister's request for a lenient sentence - as well as the screams of the defendant long after she left the court room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remorse after appearing in court are as much crocodile tears as any I have heard before. Of course she will be remorsefull to avoid getting a heavier sentence (well it could not have been more lenient). If the reports on the injuries and how they were inflicted and in what manner (cuts, bites and a broken finger) There would be sufficient for at least a S21!

 

Another situation where it seams the CPS chose the easy way out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remorse after appearing in court are as much crocodile tears as any I have heard before. Of course she will be remorsefull to avoid getting a heavier sentence (well it could not have been more lenient). If the reports on the injuries and how they were inflicted and in what manner (cuts, bites and a broken finger) There would be sufficient for at least a S21!

 

Another situation where it seams the CPS chose the easy way out!

 

Now how on earth did you come to that conclusion? I cannot see how the CPS chose the easy way out? She was charged, went to court and pleaded guilty. Were they supposed to appeal that and make her go not guilty so they could have a trial and thus she'd lose the discount for a guilty plea?

 

I have no idea what a S21 is, but the injuries described are exactly right for an ABH (S47) under the charging standards. If it was just a few cuts and a bite without the fractured finger then it might possibly have been common assault (bearing in mind the level of injury is not the only deciding factor in the charging standards, the likely sentence is important) but in this case we've got the fractured finger, so it's an ABH. ABH is serious injury, so I'd say they've got it spot on. 

 

She pleaded guilty so assuming it was at the first available opportunity, she gets a one third reduction. 

 

As for the remorse, I don't get what you are saying. She pleaded guilty and apologised. Whether she meant it or not is irrelevant. She has accepted she was in the wrong which is the whole idea of a guilty plea. Are you suggesting she should turn up, plead guilty and then just say 'f*** you' to the court? The reasonable thing to do is to apologise if you're in the wrong, which she has done. I don't see the problem with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that should have been S20 of the Offences Against The Person Act

 

Section 20

This section creates the offences of wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm. The CPS guidance prefers this section to be used instead of section 18 when the harm done was more consequential rather than intentional, and/or the wounding was less serious. These are therefore less serious than the offences created by section 18 and carry a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.

"Inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon 20. Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument,  

 

The wounds caused by being cut with the glass, the bite and the broken finger, collectively would amount to sufficient evidence to support this offence. Added to that the repeated unprovoked aggression by the offender would or should have been fully considered.   I would think there has been a bit of behind the scenes chatting between the CPS and the defence council (in other words plea bargaining)l to get her to plead the S47 ABH for a lighter sentence and a lesser charge. virtually letting someone off for committing this offence is not supporting the victim who had a right to work without fear of being attacked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, that's not correct. If you read the charging standards then you'll understand why it's ABH.

They actually are quite sensible standards as they provide good differentiation between the various assault offences. Otherwise, from above, a paper cut is S20 but to charge with anything other than common assault makes a mockery of other GBHs and devalues the much more serious s20s. Don't forget S20 is really serious injury.

Also the sentence for ABH is exactly the same as S20 anyway.

It's not letting off at all, letting off would be to charge for common assault.

There is this misconception that ABH is not serious which is wholly incorrect. ABH is for serious injuries hence why it can be tried or sentenced in the Crown Court and in this case was exactly the right charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being familiar with the current (in my view distorted) charging standards I bow to your knowledge, however under the Act the definition of the injuries is still a S20. No if's but's why's or wherefore's. A CPS directive cannot overide a statute - or can it?

 

If they are not going to use S20 then delete it from the statute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being familiar with the current (in my view distorted) charging standards I bow to your knowledge, however under the Act the definition of the injuries is still a S20. No if's but's why's or wherefore's. A CPS directive cannot overide a statute - or can it?

If they are not going to use S20 then delete it from the statute

How can you say something is distorted if you don't know about it?

As Cheese says charging standards are there to make sure the right charge is put to the court. In many cases different bits of legislation could apply so there has to be some rules or guidance so as to standardise what is put before courts in similar circumstances.

As for deleting S.20, personally I've thought that for a long time. I am sure the legislators in 1861 had a good reason for it but why not have simple 'assault without injury', 'assault with injury' and 'assault with intent to cause serious harm'?

Blaming the CPS for the sentence the court imposed - it could have been 5 years in prison - is like blaming the police for the CPS charging decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, if life was so simple. Getting a major change to an important piece of legislation would be a lifelong task. Good as many pieces were in their day  isn't it time that some acts were repealed and brought up to date and simplified, not just amending or updating them to fit the current situation.

 

This was done with the Malicious Damage Act (apart from a couple of sections retained which dealt directly with railway legislation) and replaced with the Criminal Damage Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 8 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.