Fair Outcome?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-58031419

[Zacs-Master]

Sort of. A zero on the compensation would be better.

[New Judge]

It's always difficult to comment on sentencing when so little of the facts are known, but on the face of it I would say this is not a fair outcome. He was over-sentenced. The guidelines for Common Assault are here:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/common-assault-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-common-assault-common-assault-on-emergency-worker/

From what I could see, the offence might just creep into Category 2 for "Harm" - that is "Minor physical or psychological harm/distress". This means that to have crossed the custody threshold the court must have assessed Mr Hughes's culpability as "High". I don't agree with that. The factors that indicate high culpability are these:

- Intention to cause fear of serious harm, including disease transmission
- Victim obviously vulnerable due to age, personal characteristics or circumstances
- Prolonged/ persistent assault
- Use of substantial force
- Strangulation/ suffocation/ asphyxiation
- Threatened or actual use of weapon or weapon equivalent*
- Leading role in group activity

I don't see any of those present, but once again I don't have all the facts so it's only my opinion. But even if that is so, the "starting point" for the court to consider is a medium level community order. Quite honestly, from the way this incident was described, it is the type of assault that would ordinarily attract a Conditional Discharge or a fine - especially if Mr Hughes was a first time offender. I was most surprised that the court considered a custodial sentence appropriate and I can only thing the "celebrity" status of the victim was a consideration.

[davebro]

May have been a bit severe but as there were 2 of them didn't he "play a leading role in group activity"?

[New Judge]

Open to debate dave, and only the court would really know. But as I said, even if that were so, it still does not push the offence over the custody threshold unless there was something more we don't know about.

[Sqad]

Seems about right..

[david small]

Trial by media. Overreacting to curry favour with the woke/unwoken brigade of numpty’s.

[Peter Pedant]

I thought it was OK
altho I would be inclined to laugh it off, after all they announced what they wanted
it was obvious he was pretty frightened.

and he is pretty geeky - not like JVT

[Peter Pedant]

// Trial by media. Overreacting to curry favour with the brigade of numpties//

nice to see an ABer speak out in favour of drunken slobs

[david small]

I say pp you’ve edited out my post to give a different meaning to suit your agenda. Woke/unwoke insert where l wrote it if you please.

[ichkeria]

What is a scandal is the number of people currently languishing in jail on indeterminate sentences despite such sentencing having been abolished.

[William51]

It was about right, but it is a pity one of the men lost their job for one silly moment.

[davebro]

//What is a scandal is the number of people currently languishing in jail on indeterminate sentences despite such sentencing having been abolished.//

Probably right - I remember a case a few years ago (maybe more than a few!) where 2 teenagers got in a punch up & one of them was unfortunately killed. Because he was "under age" the other was sentenced to be detained "at her Majesty's pleasure". He was still in jail & completely institutionalised 30 years later. Totally unjustified.

[Canary42]

Bloody savage - shouldn't see the light of day again.

[ynnafymmi]

A very hard verdict from you Canary.Are you getting more reactionary as you grow older?