Sentencing joke - I am appalled
Discussion
Sentencing quite often winds me up but in this case I am absolutely disgusted. The perp in this case was serving a suspended sentence for robbery and handling stolen goods, yet still only got four years for killing a man in an unprovoked attack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10661...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10661...
Judges can't be stupid people totally out of touch with public feeling, so why do we keep seeing this kind of sentencing? The man is obviously an extreme danger to society, yet will be walking around the streets in a couple of years time. At what point can we start calling the judges into question who hand out these ridiculously out of touch sentences?
Just saw the CCTV clip where he struck the guy, for daring to say it was wrong for him to be cycling on the path. I can't believe the Judge considered that to be provocation? 4 years is simply not an appropriate sentence. Could the prosecution not appeal for a stronger sentence?
Sadly, this is indicative of the kind of response you can expect, when you challenge anyone for wrong doing nowadays. I saw a supermarket trolley guy get threatened with a punch in the mouth, when he challenged someone using a disabled bay without a blue badge.
Sadly, this is indicative of the kind of response you can expect, when you challenge anyone for wrong doing nowadays. I saw a supermarket trolley guy get threatened with a punch in the mouth, when he challenged someone using a disabled bay without a blue badge.
e21Mark said:
Just saw the CCTV clip where he struck the guy, for daring to say it was wrong for him to be cycling on the path. I can't believe the Judge considered that to be provocation? 4 years is simply not an appropriate sentence. Could the prosecution not appeal for a stronger sentence?
Sadly, this is indicative of the kind of response you can expect, when you challenge anyone for wrong doing nowadays. I saw a supermarket trolley guy get threatened with a punch in the mouth, when he challenged someone using a disabled bay without a blue badge.
There was no provocation , the killer wasn't riding a bike.Sadly, this is indicative of the kind of response you can expect, when you challenge anyone for wrong doing nowadays. I saw a supermarket trolley guy get threatened with a punch in the mouth, when he challenged someone using a disabled bay without a blue badge.
The law is very,very complicated though isn't it.
The person that threw the punch did not intend to kill the other person,if he had gone there with a loaded gun and shot him dead it would be murder and he would have been sentenced approptiately.He had been in trouble already for other non-violent offences so these are not relevant unless the judge thinks they are.
The person that threw the punch did not intend to kill the other person,if he had gone there with a loaded gun and shot him dead it would be murder and he would have been sentenced approptiately.He had been in trouble already for other non-violent offences so these are not relevant unless the judge thinks they are.
eddy02 said:
The law is very,very complicated though isn't it.
The person that threw the punch did not intend to kill the other person,if he had gone there with a loaded gun and shot him dead it would be murder and he would have been sentenced approptiately.He had been in trouble already for other non-violent offences so these are not relevant unless the judge thinks they are.
Gill punched (and killed) a disabled man for telling his friend that riding a bicycle on the pavement is a 'dangerous activity'. This is NOT a reasonable response. He was NOT acting in self defense.The person that threw the punch did not intend to kill the other person,if he had gone there with a loaded gun and shot him dead it would be murder and he would have been sentenced approptiately.He had been in trouble already for other non-violent offences so these are not relevant unless the judge thinks they are.
As soon as poor Mr. Young spoke to the man on the bicycle, Gill was going to punch him. Due to this I would argue that the attack was planned, albeit only seconds before hand.
Squishey said:
Gill punched (and killed) a disabled man for telling his friend that riding a bicycle on the pavement is a 'dangerous activity'. This is NOT a reasonable response. He was NOT acting in self defense.
As soon as poor Mr. Young spoke to the man on the bicycle, Gill was going to punch him. Due to this I would argue that the attack was planned, albeit only seconds before hand.
Agreed. Also that Gill just cleared off despite seeing the poor chap motionless on the floor makes it twice as heartless.As soon as poor Mr. Young spoke to the man on the bicycle, Gill was going to punch him. Due to this I would argue that the attack was planned, albeit only seconds before hand.
Chilling footage.
Made me sick too and this sort of thing is happening more and more where someone is “disrespected” or there is a disagreement. Worse still is that he tried to use every trick in the book to get off:
The court heard Gill punched Mr Young after the victim allegedly made a racist remark.
"He said Andrew Young put his hand to his pocket and he thought he was going to pull out a knife or a gun."
SCUM!
The court heard Gill punched Mr Young after the victim allegedly made a racist remark.
"He said Andrew Young put his hand to his pocket and he thought he was going to pull out a knife or a gun."
SCUM!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-263540...
we're not alone in thinking that the sentence was too lenient.
we're not alone in thinking that the sentence was too lenient.
Petrus1983 said:
Judges can't be stupid people totally out of touch with public feeling, so why do we keep seeing this kind of sentencing? The man is obviously an extreme danger to society, yet will be walking around the streets in a couple of years time. At what point can we start calling the judges into question who hand out these ridiculously out of touch sentences?
It's something I've wondered too. I've long lost faith with our justice system, but it seems to be getting worse.hondafanatic said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-263540...
we're not alone in thinking that the sentence was too lenient.
Well, things are looking up. Hopefully the AG will see that justice is done.we're not alone in thinking that the sentence was too lenient.
e21Mark said:
Just saw the CCTV clip where he struck the guy, for daring to say it was wrong for him to be cycling on the path. I can't believe the Judge considered that to be provocation?
Did the judge say anything about provocation? The reason for the manslaughter charge rather than a murder charge will have been the lack of any (demonstrable) intent to kill, or even to cause serious injury. It was a single punch which on a different day could have left the victim with nothing worse than a bloody nose. So it brings up the age old question of whether you base the sentence on the intent behind the act (in which case he'd get a community order or a very short prison sentence - same as if he'd given someone a bloody nose), the consequences of the act (in which case he'd get life... but so would the motorist who causes a fatal accident through a brief loss of concentration), or a mixture of the two (as the law does... but how much of each?).I don't think that the sentence is adequate either... but I also see that it's a complicated question and that not everyone will agree with me.
e21Mark said:
Could the prosecution not appeal for a stronger sentence?
The Attorney general can, and according to the latest reports he's considering whether to do so. However a quick search brings up R v Wyatt (2009) which seems rather relevant. In that case a man with previous convictions for yobbery killed a man with a single punch in an unprovoked attack. The Court of Appeal ruled that his 18 month sentence was unduly lenient, and increased it to 3 years. If that's the benchmark for this type of case, the judge here was roughly in line with it.Aretnap said:
e21Mark said:
Just saw the CCTV clip where he struck the guy, for daring to say it was wrong for him to be cycling on the path. I can't believe the Judge considered that to be provocation?
Did the judge say anything about provocation? The reason for the manslaughter charge rather than a murder charge will have been the lack of any (demonstrable) intent to kill, or even to cause serious injury. It was a single punch which on a different day could have left the victim with nothing worse than a bloody nose. So it brings up the age old question of whether you base the sentence on the intent behind the act (in which case he'd get a community order or a very short prison sentence - same as if he'd given someone a bloody nose), the consequences of the act (in which case he'd get life... but so would the motorist who causes a fatal accident through a brief loss of concentration), or a mixture of the two (as the law does... but how much of each?).I don't think that the sentence is adequate either... but I also see that it's a complicated question and that not everyone will agree with me.
e21Mark said:
Could the prosecution not appeal for a stronger sentence?
The Attorney general can, and according to the latest reports he's considering whether to do so. However a quick search brings up R v Wyatt (2009) which seems rather relevant. In that case a man with previous convictions for yobbery killed a man with a single punch in an unprovoked attack. The Court of Appeal ruled that his 18 month sentence was unduly lenient, and increased it to 3 years. If that's the benchmark for this type of case, the judge here was roughly in line with it.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff