Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

Another barking mad sentence

Recommended Posts

Here's how it works.

 

So the guy has chucked "a missile" at a football match. This is against the law according to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/19/section/2)

 

 

 

According to the sentencing guidelines (here, remember: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MCSG_web_-_October_2014.pdf), the starting point for this offence is a Band C fine. (p.62)

 

Fines are explained on p148 of the same document. Band C is the highest band, and the starting point for any fine is 150% of weekly income, which can be varied up or down according to criteria, in the range 125%-175%.

 

Note that throwing a missile is a "level 3 fine", which sets the maximum. The maximum fine for a level 3 fine is £1000. So the starting point is whatever it is at Band C, up to that maximum.

 

The preceding explanation (p145-) in the document sets out the criteria. So, is it a first time offence, is there mitigation, has the offender pleaded guilty.

 

In this case he seems to have admitted the offence, so that will have been taken into account.

 

P.62 of the guidelines sets out the other things to be taken into account.

 

It then says "consider ancillary orders". So we turn to p.168-, and we find this on p172:

 

 

 

The Football Spectators Act is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/37/contents

 

This tells us (section 14F), that:

 

 

 

So he got the minimum banning order.

 

Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to explain it Danny that does make sense. I think my frustration bores out from the fact that I have read other sentences that seem extreme in different ways.

 

This for example was a customer who made a childish prank yet had to do two full weeks worth of work to pay back his crimes which didnt harm anybody

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tesco-customer-put-explicit-image-8554149

 

Yet on the other end of the spectrum a good samaritan who tried to help gets beaten to a pulp and the sentence is leniant to say the least

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942717/Good-Samaritan-teenager-left-dead-battered-face-multiple-fractures-beaten-man-stopped-help.html

 

I just cannot understand the logic in sentences sometimes from the untrained eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to explain it Danny that does make sense. I think my frustration bores out from the fact that I have read other sentences that seem extreme in different ways.

 

This for example was a customer who made a childish prank yet had to do two full weeks worth of work to pay back his crimes which didnt harm anybody

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tesco-customer-put-explicit-image-8554149

 

Yet on the other end of the spectrum a good samaritan who tried to help gets beaten to a pulp and the sentence is leniant to say the least

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942717/Good-Samaritan-teenager-left-dead-battered-face-multiple-fractures-beaten-man-stopped-help.html

 

I just cannot understand the logic in sentences sometimes from the untrained eye.

 

The "prank" that unharmed anyone received no "sentence" other than some community service and a fine.

 

The more serious offence was punished with 18 months in prison.

 

Two completely different types of punishment. One was treated with a slap on the wrist. The other locked away in prison for a term up to 18 months (despite the daily mail's predictable ASSUMPTION that they would out in 6 which of course is a load of balls if the prisoner was on any sanctions during their tariff)

 

It may appear lenient but I don't really know what more people would expect for a (....although shocking) non fatal, non weapon, non pre-mediated attack.

 

The victims injuries are shocking to look at yes, but he was still able to take a selfie, was out of hospital in a week and returned to work within 12 weeks. Psychological problems ongoing yes but physically not suffered any catastrophic. Unfortunately judges can only work within the sentencing guidelines they are set. I agree that they should be overhauled but until such day comes their hands are tied.

 

Nobody, including the DM knows anything about the case. Nobody knows anything about the attacker. He may be on drugs, he may have mental health issues he may have 101 other reasons which mitigated his actions and a Judge can only made a judgment on what he is presented with and rule on what his guidelines say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "prank" that unharmed anyone received no "sentence" other than some community service and a fine.

 

The more serious offence was punished with 18 months in prison.

 

Two completely different types of punishment. One was treated with a slap on the wrist. The other locked away in prison for a term up to 18 months (despite the daily mail's predictable ASSUMPTION that they would out in 6 which of course is a load of balls if the prisoner was on any sanctions during their tariff)

 

It may appear lenient but I don't really know what more people would expect for a (....although shocking) non fatal, non weapon, non pre-mediated attack.

 

The victims injuries are shocking to look at yes, but he was still able to take a selfie, was out of hospital in a week and returned to work within 12 weeks. Psychological problems ongoing yes but physically not suffered any catastrophic. Unfortunately judges can only work within the sentencing guidelines they are set. I agree that they should be overhauled but until such day comes their hands are tied.

 

Nobody, including the DM knows anything about the case. Nobody knows anything about the attacker. He may be on drugs, he may have mental health issues he may have 101 other reasons which mitigated his actions and a Judge can only made a judgment on what he is presented with and rule on what his guidelines say.

 

I actually know the person in question, he is of sound mind and as the DM say he works for a charity and gives back to his community. Hes harlmess, a geek as such and all you have to do is look at the photo of him printed in the DM/star to note this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually know the person in question, he is of sound mind and as the DM say he works for a charity and gives back to his community. Hes harlmess, a geek as such and all you have to do is look at the photo of him printed in the DM/star to note this.

 

I presume the harmless person you refer to is the one that got beaten up. If so I am not sure anyone was saying he wasnt. It was a totally unjustified attack on the poor guy who was trying to do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presume the harmless person you refer to is the one that got beaten up. If so I am not sure anyone was saying he wasnt. It was a totally unjustified attack on the poor guy who was trying to do the right thing.

 

No, the guy who threw the orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He must bear the fruit of his actions since the Peelers caught him.

I was at a match between Notts County and Owls and the Notts fans chucked an apple at Peter Springett, Peter gave them the thumbs up and ate the apple.

He got a standing ovation .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the guy who threw the orange.

 

Ah sorry got confused so many issues being discussed here. Exactly it was just a prank. Same with the guy with the ipad in Tescos.

 

Its like when there is a serious crime they take into account the likely hood of the guy rehabilitating which is why the leniancy always seems to be on the side of the criminal.

 

Yet a stupid act like the ipad one and this orange incident gets the book thrown at them. I have no doubt if he just got banned for a season or even a few games he wouldnt do it again. He would appologise yet they gave him a 3 year ban. Same with the guy that put adult material on an ipad if they had just given him an asbo it would have spared the court time and he would have appologised. I know its the guidelines but someone needs to change them as they are silly.

 

As for the scumbag that beat up the good samaritan he should have the book thrown at him for that as its not justified under any circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he throw a prawn cocktail and shout that's just for starters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah sorry got confused so many issues being discussed here. Exactly it was just a prank. Same with the guy with the ipad in Tescos.

 

Its like when there is a serious crime they take into account the likely hood of the guy rehabilitating which is why the leniancy always seems to be on the side of the criminal.

 

Yet a stupid act like the ipad one and this orange incident gets the book thrown at them. I have no doubt if he just got banned for a season or even a few games he wouldnt do it again. He would appologise yet they gave him a 3 year ban. Same with the guy that put adult material on an ipad if they had just given him an asbo it would have spared the court time and he would have appologised. I know its the guidelines but someone needs to change them as they are silly.

 

As for the scumbag that beat up the good samaritan he should have the book thrown at him for that as its not justified under any circumstances.

 

Funniest part of this, Mark doesnt actually support Wednesday, he is a Liverpool fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least it will be a good deterrent when other people in the future have something to launch in their hand and then think, I'd best not do that as that other chap who chucked that tangerine was suspended from watching the game for 3 years.

 

We need more deterrents like this as more people will probably think about the consequences before committing offences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least it will be a good deterrent when other people in the future have something to launch in their hand and then think, I'd best not do that as that other chap who chucked that tangerine was suspended from watching the game for 3 years.

 

We need more deterrents like this as more people will probably think about the consequences before committing offences.

 

I agree with you to some extent, its a stupid thing and some never have been done.

 

But I would prefer the police/CPS spending more money and time dealing with rapist (from Rotherham and further a field)/murders/tax cheats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he's learned a lesson?

 

"Yet serious criminals get piddling sentences handed to them"

 

Referencing too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.