Woman Glasses Man - Guessing Her Age - Suspended Sentence

[Lotobear]

CT05 Nose Cone said:

This must be that patriarchy thing I keep hearing so much about. Must be hard facing such constant oppression.

There is a power imbalance so the use of excessive and premeditated force is justified (I'm being ironic of course but I imagine some will seek to advance that sort of twisted explanation)

[MrBogSmith]

S.20 GBH.

First conviction, not unusual for it to be suspended.

Male offender suspended sentence: https://www.benhoarebell.co.uk/15-months-suspended...

Male offender suspended sentence: https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/1903202...

Etc.

[untakenname]

Completely unjust and too lenient, hopefully the victim will appeal.

imo the judge should have fitted the female with a sobriety tag as part of the suspended sentence.

goverment said:

39% of victims of serious offences believe that alcohol played a part in the offence.

Since March last year, courts in England have been able to impose Alcohol Abstinence and Monitoring Requirements (AAMRs). If drinking was a factor in an offender’s crime, AAMRs ban them from drinking alcohol for up to 120 days. They must also wear an alcohol monitoring tag as part of their community sentence.

https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2022/06/01/a-sober...

[Ryyy]

Im 27, regurlarly get mid 30s(have done for a couple years tbf), the worst being early 40s. I just say i must have had a hard paper round, wtf would you glass some for?

[Cotty]

shirt said:

It’s ludicrous that you could inflict a 10cm facial scar and avoid jail time, no matter the circumstances.

The unicorn is a rough pub btw.

I didn't see in the story, was she barred from the pub?

[Kowalski655]

I think his guess was quite generous myself

[Cotty]

untakenname said:

Completely unjust and too lenient, hopefully the victim will appeal.

or kick her in the clunge

[JagLover]

Kowalski655 said:

I think his guess was quite generous myself

Looking at the "after" pictures I was wondering if he thought late forties but try and be generous because he wanted to keep her sweet.

[the tribester]

Prisons are full, so I'm not surprised.

[ATG]

Good to see that most of the posters on this thread know more about the case than the judge. I'm a little confused as to how that has happened, but I bow to your collective wisdom and reject out of hand the thought that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

[mac96]

You don't have to know more than the judge to think that dangerously violent offenders belong in prison for public protection and that this looks like an example of it not happening.

[otolith]

Woman victim, woman perpetrator, 5 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51n9k1jq1do

[Cotty]

ATG said:

Good to see that most of the posters on this thread know more about the case than the judge. I'm a little confused as to how that has happened, but I bow to your collective wisdom and reject out of hand the thought that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

We all got copies of the evidence, didn't you?

[KTMsm]

ATG said:

Good to see that most of the posters on this thread know more about the case than the judge. I'm a little confused as to how that has happened, but I bow to your collective wisdom and reject out of hand the thought that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

If you think that if I glass you in the face, twice, leaving a 10 cm scar for the rest of your life and I get a suspended sentence is justice, then you have very different values to me

[CoolHands]

If prisons are full then they should have fined her a lot more. £5k instead of 800 quid or whatever.

[MrBogSmith]

otolith said:

Woman victim, woman perpetrator, 5 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51n9k1jq1do

That's the more serious S.18 GBH / wounding with intent.

The offence the topic relates to is the less serious S.20 GBH / wounding without intent, where suspended sentences for first time offenders are common.

[Biggy Stardust]

MrBogSmith said:

hat's the more serious S.18 GBH / wounding with intent.

The offence the topic relates to is the less serious S.20 GBH / wounding without intent, where suspended sentences for first time offenders are common.

I'm curious- how does shoving a glass into someone's face (more than once) not have an intent to wound? Especially having threatened to do so prior to the act.

[otolith]

MrBogSmith said:

otolith said:

Woman victim, woman perpetrator, 5 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51n9k1jq1do

That's the more serious S.18 GBH / wounding with intent.

The offence the topic relates to is the less serious S.20 GBH / wounding without intent, where suspended sentences for first time offenders are common.

Interesting charging decision.

[shirt]

Cotty said:

ATG said:

Good to see that most of the posters on this thread know more about the case than the judge. I'm a little confused as to how that has happened, but I bow to your collective wisdom and reject out of hand the thought that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

We all got copies of the evidence, didn't you?

He’s in the 200mth club so must have changed his email.

Again and as someone else has noted. 10cm facial scar for life, I just can’t fathom how that doesn’t result in a custodial sentence in any situation other than self defence.

[Jasandjules]

ATG said:

Good to see that most of the posters on this thread know more about the case than the judge. I'm a little confused as to how that has happened, but I bow to your collective wisdom and reject out of hand the thought that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

The information we have is that he left to go to the toilet, she therefore had a few minutes to calm down yet did not do so and still attacked him, pushing into premeditated does it not? Does that concern you?