On the way to work I read a story in the Metro about someone who was stabbed in the head with knife. There was a picture of his head with the knife still in it and an x-ray showing the blade in nearly up to the hilt (3 inches).

The person who carried out the attack admitted "wounding with intent" and was given 2 years (which means he'll probably be out in 1). Surely the intent when stabbing someone in the head is to kill them? Why have the CPS plea bargained in such a case? Why has the judge given such a pathetic sentence?

Do people agree that we should now be electing judges, and perhaps senior officials within the CPS, so we can vote out idiots making decisions like these?

Originally posted by Zamo
Do people agree that we should now be electing judges, and perhaps senior officials within the CPS, so we can vote out idiots making decisions like these?
Good lord no! We would end up with judges and senior officials posturing in the press and pandering to the public in decision making as they do in the USA.

imo in this case there was a lot more than the press reported. It may be that had the prosecution pressed for conviction on a more serious charge it would have failed. For instance, if the victim had a criminal record himself or a history of drunken behaviour and this came out in court a jury may well have thrown the case out on the basis that he deserved what he got.

I'm quite happy with the judiciary we've got. To paraphrase what Hal said in another thread "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

But Max, I think most people in this country are of the opinion that our judicial system is "broke" and does need fixing.

There may be other facts not reported in the paper but if you stab someone in the head you are trying to kill them aren't you? Therefore if there's acharge to answer then it must surely be attempted murder. If there are "other " circumstances, such as a claim of self-defence, then that is for the jury to decide isn't it?

Originally posted by Zamo
But Max, I think most people in this country are of the opinion that our judicial system is "broke" and does need fixing.

There may be other facts not reported in the paper but if you stab someone in the head you are trying to kill them aren't you? Therefore if there's acharge to answer then it must surely be attempted murder. If there are "other " circumstances, such as a claim of self-defence, then that is for the jury to decide isn't it?

Unless you actually go to court and obtain permission to view the transcripts of the trial then you are not in full possession of the same facts as the judge, jury, prosecution or defence.

Better still, go as a member of the viewing public. It can be very boring at times, but you never know what might be tried in front of you.

I think it is important for anyone who wishes to criticise the judicial system to have at least attended a crown court trial, or even a county court trial. Justice may not always be enacted, but you will never have a perfect system, and you have to base your own judgements on that fact too.

To my mind it is the extended dependence on the legal profession that is the problem. And that is a thorny topic indeed.

Originally posted by Zamo
But Max, I think most people in this country are of the opinion that our judicial system is "broke" and does need fixing.

There may be other facts not reported in the paper but if you stab someone in the head you are trying to kill them aren't you? Therefore if there's acharge to answer then it must surely be attempted murder. If there are "other " circumstances, such as a claim of self-defence, then that is for the jury to decide isn't it?
There you go with your sweeping, unsupported generalisations again. If you read my post you will see that I said that I'm satisfied with our judiciary. You, on the other hand, take it upon yourself to speak for the majority. Please substantiate your opinion.

Again, on the subject of leaving it to the jury to decide, once again the cps is in the position of damned if you do damned if you don't. If it had gone to trial as a more serious charge, as I hypothesised, and the case had collapsed you can be assured that the cps would have been pilloried for wasting the court's time. The Daily Mail would have been asking "why waste money on a trial, just let the scumbags kill each other?".

Originally posted by max
There you go with your sweeping, unsupported generalisations again. If you read my post you will see that I said that I'm satisfied with our judiciary. You, on the other hand, take it upon yourself to speak for the majority. Please substantiate your opinion.
This is the problem though. As members of the public we never get an objective view of court cases. Our opinions are formed by what we're told by the press. It's a sad fact that the press always try to feed you the gorey details of a trial so our opinions are moulded into believing the accused is guilty. What's to say this person wasn't provoked? Does anybody actually know any of the details of this trial? I would guess not, and you can't criticise things until you've got facts, or at least hard evidence.

I agree, you shouldn't make a final judgement without all the facts but that doesn't mean you can't ask questions abour whether something is right or not.

I think it is reasonable to question the decisions made in this case based on the picture of the knife with it's three inch blade embedded into the temple of the victims head and the fact that the person who put it there admitted wounded with intent. I question why a charge of attempted murder is not brought because I fail to see how anyone stabbing someone in the head like this was not intending to kill.

Max, I don't think the CPS should only bring cases to trial that they are sure they can win - even if it means a story in the Mail. I think it is right that juries get to make decisions, especially in serious cases.

This case was effectively decided by two barristers who agreed what they thought was a win-win solution, from a career point of view. The defence barrister get's his client off with a charge that will probably see him serve just 1 year for nearly killing someone and the prosecution get his conviction. This doesn't seem right to me.

Of course, everything herein is only my opinion. When I said that I think that most people are of the opinion that the judicial system needs fixing, that was again just myopinion. However, I think I am right.

Originally posted by Zamo
I question why a charge of attempted murder is not brought because I fail to see how anyone stabbing someone in the head like this was not intending to kill.
What if it was in the heat of the moment? What if the person didn't know what they were doing for some reason? What if they were aiming for their chest but missed?

If 2 barristers came to the same conclusion then I think it's unlikely that they would have got it wrong. It's all very well for you to say "you couldn't stab someone in the head without meaning to kill them", but without knowing all the facts how could you reason this?

Last story in DB's post...intent to kill or to cause harm?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2838&highlight=emergency+room

Nomme

Originally posted by Zamo
Of course, everything herein is only my opinion. When I said that I think that most people are of the opinion that the judicial system needs fixing, that was again just myopinion. However, I think I am right.

Absolutely.

But there are thousands of speculative reasons why the charge of attempted murder wasn't made.

It could be there was some evidence to show that the victim fell on the blade - proving or disproving this would be difficult.

It could be the defendant was prepared to plead insanity.

It could be the defendant believed the blade to be made of rubber.

Any number of reasons.

Originally posted by nommedenet
Last story in DB's post...intent to kill or cause or harm?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2838&highlight=emergency+room

Nomme
Nomme, you miss the point (no pun intended). The person ADMITTED stabbing him in the head with "intent", presumably to cause harm but not kill. There was no argument that this was a deliberate and violent act. I personally think there is at least a question that this should have been classed as attempted murder and therefore it should have gone to trial. If a jury, after weighing up all the evidence, decided that it was not then that is another matter.

Silda, you may be happy to entrust justice to the elite who negotiate deals behind closed doors but I am not. The risk is that decisions will be taken based on things like workloads or what is best for someones career or because someone has been bribed or threatened. Surely you are not so niave as to think such things don't go on are you?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Absolutely.

But there are thousands of speculative reasons why the charge of attempted murder wasn't made.

It could be there was some evidence to show that the victim fell on the blade - proving or disproving this would be difficult.

It could be the defendant was prepared to plead insanity.

It could be the defendant believed the blade to be made of rubber.

Any number of reasons.
Let me say it again... the accused admitted stabbing him in the head with "intent". Couple this with the picture (if you saw it) and you would find it hard to imagine that he was doing anything other than trying to kill him.

On this evidence alone I say it is reasonable to ask the CPS to justify a decision not to press for attempted murder and why the judge felt only 2 years was an appropriate punishment. If there are circumstances not reported thus far then fine - these will vindicate their decisions.

If anyone would prefer to live in a country where people are unable to question the decisions of the establishment then may I suggest North Korea.

Article with piccies on the beeb web site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/3218163.stm

Nomme

Originally posted by max
I'm quite happy with the judiciary we've got. To paraphrase what Hal said in another thread "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Those words fit the bill in some instances. I have some other words. "No crime without a victim".

He should have got two years for carrying the weapon without using the damn thing if you ask me.
It does not matter why he stabbed him in the head, he was carrying an offensive weapon so that means he was intending to use it at some time wether it was on the person he used it on or anyone else.
The facts of why this happened are not important, he is guilty of attempted murder and has got away with it.
Regarding the British justice system well, thats another story and i think thats beyond repair.

Originally posted by Zamo
Silda, you may be happy to entrust justice to the elite who negotiate deals behind closed doors but I am not. The risk is that decisions will be taken based on things like workloads or what is best for someones career or because someone has been bribed or threatened. Surely you are not so niave as to think such things don't go on are you?
Give me evidence to suggest such things do go on and ask me that question again. And even if these things do happen, I'm feel certain that they only affect a small minority of cases. I'm fairly confident that 9 times out of 10 judges make the correct decisions.

I don't see how being so cynical about things will help matters.

Originally posted by Sidla
Give me evidence to suggest such things do go on and ask me that question again. And even if these things do happen, I'm feel certain that they only affect a small minority of cases. I'm fairly confident that 9 times out of 10 judges make the correct decisions.

I don't see how being so cynical about things will help matters.
Perhaps they do get it right 9 times out of 10 but surely we don't simply say "that'll do". What about that 10th person, be it an innocent person wrongly convicted or a victim of crime who doesn't get justice because of plea bargaining or weak sentencing? I think that we not only have a right to speak out and demand answers when we think something is wrong, we also have a duty. You will be greatful if one day you end up that unfortunate "acceptable" 10th person.

Proof of miscarriages...

"Lord Chancellor's Department's statistics on successful appeals against criminal conviction show that in the decade 1989-1999 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) abated over 8,470 criminal convictions - a yearly average of 770. In addition, there are around 3,500 quashed criminal convictions a year at the Crown Court for convictions obtained at the magistrates' courts. Contrary to popular perceptions, then, wrongful criminal convictions are a normal, everyday feature of the criminal justice system - the system doesn't just sometimes get it wrong, it gets it wrong everyday, of every week, of every month of every year. With the result that thousands of innocent people experience a whole variety of harmful consequences that wrongful criminal convictions engender."

source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4469866-102273,00.html)

I hade a quick search for some figures on plea bargaining. I found this paper (https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/postgraduate/modules/crim_intro_crim_just/pre_trial_issues.doc), which quotes a survey that found 18.2% of people pleading guilty, did so after a formal plea bargains. A further 13.2% pleaded guilty after agreeing a "tacit" bargain. So, nearly a third of all guilt plea cases are as a result of some sort of bargain, whether formally offered or not.

Now I'm not saying that there are no circumstances in which a plea bargain is appropriate. I'm saying that this is a dangerous trend. All I have suggested in this thread is that, at the very least, those making these "bargains" (prosecution and defence lawers and judges) should be made to justify their decisions when there are reasonable concerns that justice has not been served.

Silda, do you still think it is wrong to expect this?

Originally posted by nommedenet
Article with piccies on the beeb web site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/3218163.stm

Nomme
No mention of a plea bargain.

Originally posted by Zamo
Let me say it again... the accused admitted stabbing him in the head with "intent". Couple this with the picture (if you saw it) and you would find it hard to imagine that he was doing anything other than trying to kill him.

On this evidence alone I say it is reasonable to ask the CPS to justify a decision not to press for attempted murder and why the judge felt only 2 years was an appropriate punishment. If there are circumstances not reported thus far then fine - these will vindicate their decisions.

If anyone would prefer to live in a country where people are unable to question the decisions of the establishment then may I suggest North Korea.
If you want to question the establishment then please do so, and report your findings about this cae back here so we can all see what the actual cirumstances of the case were.

The victim can appeal against the sentence, the victim can force judicial review, the victim can take out a private prosecution. It doesn't end with the conviction, so much as begin with it.

If you feel this is not an appropriate sentence, write to the CPS, the Judge that tried it, your MP. You have the power to effect change as much as anyone else.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
No mention of a plea bargain.
"The 18-year-old knifeman has been sentenced to two years in a Young Offender Institution at Newcastle Crown Court after he pleaded guilty to wounding with intent. He denied attempted murder and the prosecution accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge." source (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_832863.html)

I agree that plea bargains are in some circumstance appropriate. For example in big fraud cases where evidence goes on for months and months, costs millions of pounds and is extremely complex and difficult for juries to follow and understand. However, this case is far more straight-forward and a jury should have been given the opportunity to decide if it was attempted murder, wounding with intent or self defence. If a jury had found him guilty of attempted murder then I believe he would have received a far longer, and more appropriate, sentence.

The sentence seems even more inappropriate given the fact that perpetrator was also given a community rehabilitation order for robbery only last September. How many chances do you give people? Where's the deterrent? Where's the justice?

Originally posted by Zamo
"<snip>after he pleaded guilty to wounding with intent. He denied attempted murder and the prosecution accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge." source (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_832863.html)

Granted - not on the BBC story postedby Nomme however

However, this case is far more straight-forward and a jury should have been given the opportunity to decide if it was attempted murder, wounding with intent or self defence. If a jury had found him guilty of attempted murder then I believe he would have received a far longer, and more appropriate, sentence.

well yes, because then he would have ben guilty of attempted murder, which he is not, currently. That much is straightforward

The sentence seems even more inappropriate given the fact that perpetrator was also given a community rehabilitation order for robbery only last September. How many chances do you give people? Where's the deterrent? Where's the justice?

If you have information that Thompson attempted to kill Siddle with malice aforethought then you need to contact the CPS seeing as they probably couldn't have proved that beyond a reasonable doubt in court, hence the acceptance of a guilty plea for a lesser charge.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
If you have information that Thompson attempted to kill Siddle with malice aforethought then you need to contact the CPS seeing as they probably couldn't have proved that beyond a reasonable doubt in court, hence the acceptance of a guilty plea for a lesser charge.
You're just being silly now. I personally think that the photo of the injury with an admission of wounding with "intent" is sufficient evidence to justify a jury trial for attempted murder.

At the very least let the CPS explain their reasoning for what I see as a let off.

Originally posted by Zamo
You're just being silly now. I personally think that the photo of the injury with an admission of wounding with "intent" is sufficient evidence to justify a jury trial for attempted murder.

At the very least let the CPS explain their reasoning for what I see as a let off.
Zamo, instead of repeating the same thing again and again why don't you do as phanny suggests and write to the cps or your MP for more information. In fact, you could pm your MP as he's a contributor to this forum - Richard Allen.

Originally posted by Zamo
I personally think that the photo of the injury with an admission of wounding with "intent" is sufficient evidence to justify a jury trial for attempted murder.
But how do you know he was attempting to murder him?

Max, so sorry to bore you.

If someone post their view back asking "what about this" or "what about that" then I try to answer their points. True this has lead me to repeat the same argument more than once but that's because it applied more than once.

I was myself the victim of an unprovoked assault that left me unconcious, with multiple injuries and only my lucky stars to thank that one of the kicks to my head didn't finishing me off. My attackers were never caught. Whilst this is frustrating I don't blame the police, who I think worked hard to find them, and is something I can live with. What I find harder to live with is when similar cases do get to court some pr*ck in a wig decides to offer a plea bargain because he's got too many cases on. Whoops, there I go again repeating myself.

Max please do try forgive my passion for a subject close to home. I'll try not to bore you again.

I sympathise about what happened to you, I really do. Do you think you attackers got the correct sentence?

However, just because you have once been a victim, it doesn't mean you can act as judge, juror and executioner. You know very little about this case and yet you're talking as though this man should rot in hell and damnation for all eternity. If you were at the trial and heard all the given evidence it would be more acceptable, however I'm still not certain I'd trust your judgement because of your past experiences.

As a judge it's your duty to be unbiased and take all evidence into consideration before making your final judgement. I accept that sometimes they may make the wrong decisions but I'm not willing to believe it happens very often. I do not like it when people get up in arms about such matters when they cannot see the full picture.

Originally posted by Sidla
But how do you know he was attempting to murder him?
You say "how do you know he was attempted to murder him". Well of course we will never know 100% for sure that his intention was to kill him. Instead we have to use a thing called judgement to decided beyond reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by Zamo
You say "how do you know he was attempted to murder him". Well of course we will never know 100% for sure that his intention was to kill him. Instead we have to use a thing called judgement to decided beyond reasonable doubt.
It's up to a judge to use that judgement, not us.

Originally posted by Sidla
I sympathise about what happened to you, I really do. Do you think you attackers got the correct sentence?

However, just because you have once been a victim, it doesn't mean you can act as judge, juror and executioner. You know very little about this case and yet you're talking as though this man should rot in hell and damnation for all eternity. If you were at the trial and heard all the given evidence it would be more acceptable, however I'm still not certain I'd trust your judgement because of your past experiences.

As a judge it's your duty to be unbiased and take all evidence into consideration before making your final judgement. I accept that sometimes they may make the wrong decisions but I'm not willing to believe it happens very often. I do not like it when people get up in arms about such matters when they cannot see the full picture.
I admit that on the small amount of evidence provided by the press I believe him to be guilt of attempted murder and should serve a far longer sentence. However, it has been pointed out to me that I'm not in posession of all the facts and that I shouldn't judge without them. Fair enough. But I say again (sorry Max!) that the photographic evidence, with an admission that he inflicted the wound "with intent", gives rise to enough concern to ask whether it was right not to put a more serious charge of attempted murder before a jury and whether the sentence imposes is truely a just one.

You may think that my sense of fair play has been clouded by my own experiences but I say it has simply been woken up.

Originally posted by Sidla
It's up to a judge to use that judgement, not us.
No, in a jury trial (for serious offences) it is the jury that must use their judgement to decide guilt. The judge uses judgement to decide the sentence.