Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: 6 Months sentence : Disgrace proving Courts back the Police to the bitter end
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jim |
Thanks BR,
That was a helpful and interesting post. I bow to your superior judgement in these matter. You write:
"I know who I am more afraid of and it is not the vicar."
Indeed!
Best Wishes,
Jim |
|
BR |
Jim - you describe very well how sentencing is carried out.
The point that gets me is this - the charge in the first place was wrong.
In the video you could see the damage done to this women was clearly not ABH - it was GBH - and she is still suffering injury now.
So the Police charged him with the lowest grade of assault they could get away with.
In fact if this had been a member of the public they would have been charged with GBH and possibly other offences arising from the situation ( clearly shown on CCTV )
GBH carries a 10 year sentence.
I would expect someone drawing blood and smashing a woman's head in to be at least in the middle of sentencing for ABH as well.
What would someone have to do to get a 5 year sentence for ABH if this assault ( pulling a women along the ground by her hair - throwing her into a wall so that her face and eye explode in bloood ) only merits 6 months. Yes he was in a position of Trust/Care as well at the time of the assault. This would suggest that if a member of the public did this to someone they would get 3 months ? ( Trust usually adds 3 - 6 months to a 5 year sentence and a year to a 10 year sentence )
It is all wrong. Really stinks./ The Daily Mail comments have gone mad about this - we see a vicar getting 4 years for conducting fraud marriages .....then real nasty violence gets 6 months. No comparison between the two - I know who I am more afraid of and it is not the vicar. |
|
Jim |
Thanks BR,
I confess I don't know much about sentencing practices. I therefore don't know whether to feel shocked at the six month sentence. Perhaps if I had another similar case to compare it with I would do.
What I do feel is a sense of relief that a custodial sentence has been passed. I would have hated this cop to get off without going to jail. Looking at the sentencing guidelines, however, I see that the court could not have passed anything less than a custodial sentence in this case.
It's true the ABH carries a five year maximum sentence.
Sentencing guidelines are here, for anyone interested: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100...nst-the%20person.pdf
I can't seem to find the relevant section within ABH for non-premeditated causing more than minor injury. I would not say this was a minor injury. I suspect, however, the court may have regarded it as non-premeditated, in the sense that he wasn't sitting around at home brooding and planning the attack on this particular woman. He just got angry. Therefore, if I'm right, the court would have considered it non-premeditated.
There is a list of aggravating factors, several of which seem to apply, especially "abuse of a position of trust", but plainly not all of them apply, so a 5 year penalty was never going to be warranted.
Best Wishes,
Jim |
|
Angel |
True BR, Hopefully it will feel like 6 years once the inmates "get to know him." |
|
BR |
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11214026
ABH carries a 5 year sentence.
This poor women was injured in a Police Station by the person in charge. He should have got at least 3 years.
If you or I went out tonight and we smashed the face in of a POLICEWOMEN or MAN causing them that sort of injury what sort of sentence would we get ? I wonder......
One rule for them - another for us.
This lack of sentence = a POLICE STATE.
I am stunned by this. |
|
|
|
