Lack of justice again!!

[woodmally 10]

Yet again if someone has a "poor background" they are let of lightly by the judges.  So its alright to attack someone if you have a bad childhood. Utterly disgusting. 

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/man-who-attacked-stranger-yards-away-from-his-south-yorkshire-home-walks-away-from-court-with-community-order-1-9526691?fbclid=IwAR3h0C1oGLkYETcqstIkH9nF14mI_9b_j3MMNeF9twAMVkL4JPNvUEsFm08

[melthebell 863]

its not let off lightly, its mitigating circumstances which are taken in every case, and so they should. Its not all about prosecution, but defence too.

 

that story doesnt mention how it all came to be either, how it all started, obviously something started the arguement with the neighbour, and im sure there was something more than "what are you doing" and bash bash bash 10 times

[geared 318]

Glove was on the other hand with that Cambridge University student that stabbed her boyfriend in a drug-induced rage.

 

Then it was all claims of elitism and no punishment for the rich.

[dutch 68]

Interesting topic. Could be lots said about it, only thing is the info is from the star and I cannot base my statements on twisted speculations.

[woodview 10]

Police also took 11 months to charge the guy eventually found guilty. I'd guess there's more to it than is being reported.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Sorry, if you do the crime, you serve the time. Mitigating circumstances, balderdash.

 

Don't know why the text is like it is, must have pressed a button somewhere, apologies.

 

Angel1

[iansheff 88]

Don't know about if you are poor but if you are well known like Katie Price you can get off lightly.

[Resident 1,193]

7 minutes ago, iansheff said:

Don't know about if you are poor but if you are well known like Katie Price you can get off lightly.

Exactly. She got a 3 month ban and fines totalling 1300 for driving whilst disqualified and no insurance. 

 

The sentence is the absolute minimum, according to sentence guidelines for just the offence of driving whilst disqualified (Minimum disqualification + Band A fine) so no punishment for driving with no insurance which should be a further 6-8 points and Band C fine. 

 

There's also the outstanding matter of her arrest for drink-drive. 

[Eater Sundae 12]

But surely all examples of driving while disqualified must also mean they are not insured - so when sentencing for driving while disqualified, the minimum sentence is OK as it must have already allowed for the lack of insurance

[1978 14]

5 hours ago, woodview said:

Police also took 11 months to charge the guy eventually found guilty. I'd guess there's more to it than is being reported.

Too right, the speed of the judicial system is illustrated here and delays of this order are endemic. That needs sorting out if we are to have faith in our courts. Far too many cases that should be dealt with in a couple of weeks, certainly no more than a couple of months, are taking for ever. 17 months for a fairly simple case like this suggests it got lost in umpteen in trays and mailboxes. And he pleaded guilty after all that!

[Resident 1,193]

1 hour ago, Eater Sundae said:

But surely all examples of driving while disqualified must also mean they are not insured - so when sentencing for driving while disqualified, the minimum sentence is OK as it must have already allowed for the lack of insurance

You'd think however they are separate charges which have different guidelines. if if they were considered together the no insurance carries a higher penalty fine-wise so that should be adopted. 

 

6 hours ago, woodview said:

Police also took 11 months to charge the guy eventually found guilty. I'd guess there's more to it than is being reported.

It could only be assumed that despite circumstantial evidence they had nothing concrete therefore were unable request that the CPS take the case and formally charge him. 

 

13 minutes ago, 1978 said:

Too right, the speed of the judicial system is illustrated here and delays of this order are endemic. That needs sorting out if we are to have faith in our courts. Far too many cases that should be dealt with in a couple of weeks, certainly no more than a couple of months, are taking for ever. 17 months for a fairly simple case like this suggests it got lost in umpteen in trays and mailboxes. And he pleaded guilty after all that!

TBH the guilty plea will have just been a tactic to reduce his sentence. It's something that annoys me greatly. Pleading guilty can get you upto 1/3 OFF the tariff for the crime and I believe it shouldn't. If a crime has a sentence of 10 years then pleading guilty should get you those 10 years. If you plead not guilty and then are found guilty by a jury that should ADD 1/3 to the 10 years, giving you 13.3r years. 

[Crosser 10]

oh another 3.3 years of taxpayers money..... cool (NOT!)

 

It should be like Thailand

Your family feed you or it's fish heads for every meal.