Should It Be Left Up To The Judge To Decide If This Monster Should Be Deported Or Not?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4462694/Pakistani-asylum-seeker-beat-wife-hammer.html

I make no apologies for entering the first anti-Muslim post of the day, especially in this case.

[EDDIE51]

As deportation is not an option for a ABH charge the judge had no option to deport him. As I repeatedly have to remind people on here.
A judge or magistrate CAN NOT make up the law for themselves, they CAN only follow the sentencing guidelines.
This is yet another case of the Mail reporting a story in terms intended to provoke outrage. It fails to mention the fact that the judge did not have the option of deportation but says he 'decided not to order it'

[douglas9401]

So many questions need answering in this case, not least what kind of hammers were used in the assault.
I'm guessing that a ten minute, sustained assault with what I picture as two hammers to be would result in death or very serious injury, even if the blows were inflicted by a weedy inadequate as pictured.

As to the main question, who else but a judge should deal with matters of law? You surely don't imagine a politician would risk alienating a voting bloc by arranging free passage back to the biggest asylum in the world.

In conclusion, I remember when wor electric were sold in yards, not metres.

[vulcan42]

EDDIE51, In a situation like this can a judge refer it to a higher authority?

[EDDIE51]

So NO it should not be up to the judge! It would mean a complete change in the way the law is administered. Different judges could make different sentencing decisions in similar case's based only on their own personal opinion.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm unsure how big a change it would be for parliament to make deportation an option. Judges always have to decide between the options they have at their disposal.

[EDDIE51]

vulcan, NO the judge can ONLY follow the sentence guidelines.
The only time a case can be 'referred up' for sentencing is if a magistrates court decides it's sentencing power (max 6 months in jail) is insufficient. The case would then be' referred up' to the High Court.
This case was already at the High court.

[vulcan42]

EDDIE51, Thank you.

[EDDIE51]

OG if you make deportation an option for ABH where do you go from there?
The next time someone will demand it as an option for common assault , then down to threatening behavior and so on.

[Old_Geezer]

The slippery slope argument. Yes it is something to consider. But the question as to where the line is draw is a valid one. Hammer assualt, not nice, one could argue we don't wish to give an invitation to live here to those who arrive and are capable of that.

[douglas9401]

What would your plan be for dealing with asylum seekers who turn out to be violent thugs, Eddie?
A sliding scale of less and less desirable areas to live in?

Teach them a lesson they'd never forget, eh?

[Gladeian]

IMO deportation is not part of any punishment for the offences before the court. Therefore the judge should have no part or say in the matter. It should be a matter for the consideration of the Home Office only and after their decision should not be subject to review from any other body. If the Home Office decide to deport then that's it.

[EDDIE51]

douglas The law is 'Blind' it can not distinguish between 'asylum seekers' and other offenders, all must be dealt with only according to law.

[trt]

15 MONTHS, what a joke, DEPORT with a rubber dingy.....!!!!!!

[trt]

## The next time someone will demand it as an option for common assault , then down to threatening behaviour and so on. ##

For Asylum Seekers & Immigrants, why not Eddie, some are worse than wild animals, which we have witnessed recently!!!!!!

[EDDIE51]

trt, it is 15 months after the mandatory 1/3 reduction for a guilty plea.
So the actual sentence would have been 2 years , which near the top of the guidelines for a 1st offence of ABH. As normal of course the Daily Mail reports the sentence as 15 months which is not correct!
Some on here will not be happy until we return to the days of deportation ( transportation) for any offence of theft of an artical worth over a shilling. People were transported to Australia for sealing bread.

[emmie]

he needs a good hiding, then kicked out the country.

[naomi24]

Eddie,//Some on here will not be happy until we return to the days of deportation ( transportation) for any offence of theft of an artical worth over a shilling.//

But this isn’t petty theft is it. Why do you want people like him - or any foreign criminal - to stay here?

[andy-hughes]

Since there is no mention of Mr Akrim's faith in the piece, it would be an assumption that he is a Muslim.

I would assume that your issues with Mr Akrim are connected with his behaviour in this instance, rather than the fact that he may or may not be a Muslim?

If that is the case, there is no need to offer an apology for 'the first anti-Muslim post of the day ...' since I can find nothing anti-Muslim either in your link, or your post.

[EDDIE51]

naomi, Yet again I am stating the law not my own view.
My point about transportation was intended to illustrate the demand by some on AB for ever tougher penalties for lesser offences.
( a few months back it was for murder, now they want it for ABH)
You know as well as I do that Transportation / deportation can never be an option for minor theft .

[-Talbot-]

If we're are talking about what SHOULD happen then he SHOULD be deported.

I would expect any country in the world to do the same to a Briton that commits this kind of crime.