Is That What British Justice Says A Man's Life Is Worth - 40 Months ?

[youngmafbog]

Which will undoubtedly turn out to be 20 months.

The law in this country is a joke sometimes.

//Snellgrove lost his temper and shouted at Mr Galvin before pushing him 'forcibly' into the road. He then attempted to help him up but discovered the pensioner was seriously injured so fled the scene in Gosport //

What a vile cowardly piece of scum he is, pushing a pensioner. Lets just hope Mr Big enjoys him in the 20 months so we get some sort of justice.

[Zacs-Master]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-38512285

[dunnitall]

""What a vile cowardly piece of scum he is, pushing a pensioner. Lets just hope Mr Big enjoys him in the 20 months so we get some sort of justice.""

Totally agree with you and with a history of violence to go with this piece of.......the sentence should have been for longer, much longer. These people need putting out of OUR misery....I wouldn't be surprised at all if when he gets out, he will find some other poor soul to hurt or worse!

[Mamyalynne]

It's so hard to see the sense in such a low sentence - however someone better versed in the workings of the guidelines may explain it.

[youngmafbog]

Exactly DB, this piece of work is likely to see it as a licence to kill and maim others.

[andy-hughes]

As I understand the law, the sentence is far higher for intended harm.

The defence would have argued that the injuries sustained by the victim were not deliberately inflicted, and therefore the sentence is reduced accordingly.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// The defence would have argued that the injuries sustained by the victim were not deliberately inflicted, and therefore the sentence is reduced accordingly. ///

The defence will try anything, that is their job, but knocking a pensioner to the ground seems pretty deliberate to me.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - They would not dispute that the assault took place, they would argue that the subsequent injuries were not inflicted with malice aforethought, and that is where the law takes a view and the sentence is reduced.

[cassa333]

Mandarin way is tarted up MOD property that was sold off to HA and private buyers a few years back.

The sentence is probably a lot lower than we would hope because there was no intent to kill... just hurt and intimidate a great deal.

Probably an arsey thug who Is used to intimidating people with verbal abuse and this time his luck ran out.

Although I don't live in the area our rental property is across the road off Grange Lane.

[EDDIE51]

Snellgrove lost his temper in an argument and pushed Galvin, so there was no provable intention to cause harm. I DO NOT !!!! approve of it, but under the circumstances it was the best that could be done. If Galvin had not died it could only have been ABH or common assault ! Snellgrove tried to help Galvin get up, but ran away when he realised that he had been seriously injured by the fall which was caused by being pushed.
Yet again we see a situation where a judge is criticised for simply following the sentence guidelines!

[youngmafbog]

So the law is an Ass once again then?

[youngmafbog]

//Yet again we see a situation where a judge is criticised for simply following the sentence guidelines! //

Who has said that on here ?

[andy-hughes]

YMB - you are legitimately upset at what you perceive to be a lenient sentence for a violent crime.

But that does not mean that 'the law is an ass' - a statement offered by a fictional character who felt aggrieved in exactly the same way, even if under less tragic circumstances.

The law can only work within a framework, and there are always going to be situations where people feel that its framework has not worked in what they see as an appropriate fashion - but it is still the only way the law can work properly. It has its faults, but it is still the best we can do.

[whiskeryron]

I wonder if ''Grouty'' or his equivalent in our 'nicks' uses A/B if so do us a favour & remember this guys name when he comes in.

[andy-hughes]

divebudy - Again I would have no argument with the sentiment of what you say - but if you apply the sentencing structure that way, how are you going to punish a murderer who did intend death by his / her actions?

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //I don't know what the sentencing guidelines say about manslaughter, but given Snellgrove's history of violence, he should have got whatever the maximum is. //

I am going to sound like some tutting uncle here, that is genuinely not my intention but -

You cannot sentence someone over again for things they have done - if they have served a sentence, then that's the end of it, and if not, then they were not tried and convicted, so again, you can't apply that behaviour to a current sentence.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //Andy, Are you saying that someone's previous behaviour should not be taken into account. Really. //

Personaly - no, legally - yes.