Woman Glasses Man - Guessing Her Age - Suspended Sentence

[Legacywr]

Why only suspend it for 12 months, 3 years would fit the seriousness of the crime.

[gotoPzero]

[quote]However, Judge Elizabeth Nicholls gave her a suspended sentence saying that although there was no excuse for the crime she committed, she could see Dodd was a ‘hard working woman’, ‘loving mother’ and ‘no risk to the public’.

[/quote]

How is she not a risk to the public given she glassed some random bloke in the face?

Virtually any woman can be a mother, so what?

Virtually anyone can work a job, so what?

We are way too soft these days. Everyone is seen as some sort of hero or special person for doing just normal day to day stuff.

[MrBogSmith]

Biggy Stardust said:

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.

It's a good question.

I don't think there's any doubt she intended to assault the man, but it's specifically the intent to cause GBH / wounding that needs proving beyond reasonable doubt.

Maybe if put to a jury that could have been achieved (assuming she'd plead not guilty). Maybe not. Perhaps the CPS were happy to accept a plea for S.20 rather than go to trial for a S.18.

Without knowing all the circumstances etc I can only speculate.

otolith said:

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.

Indeed.

Gets a bit nerdy with direct / oblique intent, but I don't see how glassing someone doesn't show a form intent to cause serious harm.

Legacywr said:

Why only suspend it for 12 months, 3 years would fit the seriousness of the crime.

Can only suspend up to 2 years.

[Biggy Stardust]

There seems to be a massive contradiction between

MrBogSmith said:

I don't think there's any doubt she intended to assault the man, but it's specifically the intent to cause GBH / wounding that needs proving beyond reasonable doubt.

and

MrBogSmith said:

I don't see how glassing someone doesn't show a form intent to cause serious harm.

[MrBogSmith]

The first is explaining what is legally required, the second is my view.

[XCP]

Plea bargain.

[MightyBadger]

Struggles to contain her anger, could have killed him...should be in jail for at least 6 months.

Edited by MightyBadger on Tuesday 23 April 22:08

[ATG]

Jasandjules 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.

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?

The information you have is from an article in a tabloid newspaper that sets out to sensationalise events to entertain its readers.

When a judgement seems odd in the context of what you've learned from a tabloid, it is invariably because the tabloid has given you a version of events that has been edited to make the judgment look odd. Key bits of information and explanation have been left out.

So, to answer your question, no it doesn't worry me. It's vaguely interesting, but not sufficiently interesting to encourage me to find out what really happened.

[768]

Jasandjules said:

The usual double standards I am afraid, sadly.

Probably about the start, middle and end of it.

[MightyBadger]

Looks at least 45 (runs and ducks for cover).

[bitchstewie]

You can not pay your TV license and go to jail or you can glass someone in the face and not go to jail.

Strange world.

[Mr Penguin]

bhstewie said:

You can not pay your TV license and go to jail or you can glass someone in the face and not go to jail.

Strange world.

You can't go to prison for not paying for a TV licence.

[Cotty]

bhstewie said:

You can not pay your TV license and go to jail or you can glass someone in the face and not go to jail.

Strange world.

You cannot be sent to prison for a TV Licensing conviction. But the court may decide to send you to prison for deliberately refusing to pay your court fines.

[bitchstewie]

Fair point on that distinction.

But still nuts that you can literally glass someone in the face and not do any actual jail time IMO.

[Cotty]

I agree with you. Its nuts

Does that imply that the courts think that money is more important than people

Edited by Cotty on Wednesday 24th April 12:10

[KTMsm]

Cotty said:

I agree with you. Its nuts

Does that imply that the courts think that money is more important than people

That's long been established it just depends on who's/ how much money and which people