Common sense fail in the courts again...

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
20,404
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Judge-attacker-gets-sent-to-jail-20130604111132.htm

From my local paper. A guy gets 18 months for knocking a judges wig off in court and for scuffling. Yes its wrong, but compared to the fact his brother gets just 30 months for killing someone for dangerous driving, how on earth is that proportionate to the crime.

Surely if 30 months for killing someone is correct then he should have got a fine, or of 18 months for the 'assault' is right, surely his brother should have had a much longer sentence.
 
Did you attend court for both cases and hear all the evidence?
 
Gary Coyle said:
Its the 30 month for killing someone which is disproportionate to the relative offences
Click to expand...

Not about any specific case,but generally...

The 30 months isn't for the effect of the offence, it's for the offence per se, regardless of whether or not someone was killed or injured.

This never seems satisfactory to the loved ones of someone killed in an accident but look at this this way - should the good or bad luck of whether someone got killed or injured or not affect the punishment of the person who drove badly?

And as for the Judge throwing his weight around when someone does something naughty in Court, that's really much the same thing as someone being jailed for telling porkies about his wife driving instead of him, and taking the speeding points - the judicial system takes itself very seriously and really doesn't like people who don't
 
Garry Edwards said:
the judicial system takes itself very seriously and really doesn't like people who don't
Click to expand...

As it should. In the case as described, it is not just an assault on an individual, it is an assault on the system itself. If the same "scuffle" between the same individuals had occured in a pub as a consequence of an alcohol fueled argument about football, it would not have attracted the same sentence.

For the judicial system to work and be fair the people that administer it must be protected from assaults arising from their work. So, an assault on a judge by someone that disagrees with a sentence that has just been passed is way more serious than an argument about City vs Rovers (or whatever) and must be treated as such. If the protection isn't there in the form of severe penalties then unscrupulous members of the public might be tempted to interfere with the course of justice, with the knock on effect that judges might pass softer sentences in fear of retaliatory action from friends of the guilty party.

This would not be the outcome the OP wants, I would suggest.
 
Is there any video of the guy knocking off the judges wig. I'd like to see that
 
joescrivens said:
Is there any video of the guy knocking off the judges wig. I'd like to see that
Click to expand...

It was in court, Joe. This isn't America!
 
Nope Joe, it's against the law. That is why we only see court sketches in the papers.
 
Bluehawk said:
Nope Joe, it's against the law. That is why we only see court sketches in the papers.
Click to expand...

Some hearings in Scotland have already been shown on television, including the sentencing of David Gilroy who, in April 2012, received 18 years for the 2010 killing of book keeper Suzanne Pilley.
 
joescrivens said:
interesting. I did not know that
Click to expand...

Photography was originally banned from court rooms in 1925. Film and video cameras were added to the ban later.

But they do say tv will be allowed back in October this year.
 
Bluehawk said:
Nope Joe, it's against the law. That is why we only see court sketches in the papers.
Click to expand...

There are normally cctv for security and safety reasons but I doubt anybody would have the balls to leak that onto the internet.
 
I had a friend killed by a drunk driver, the driver was even caught speeding 100m up the road by a camera, doing twice the legal limit.

£80 fine and a slap on the wrist was her punishment.

Go figure why I have no faith in the legal system.
 
Bluehawk said:
Nope Joe, it's against the law. That is why we only see court sketches in the papers.
Click to expand...

IIRC, even the sketches have to be done outside the actual courtroom from the artist's memory.
 
faddius said:
I had a friend killed by a drunk driver, the driver was even caught speeding 100m up the road by a camera, doing twice the legal limit.

£80 fine and a slap on the wrist was her punishment.

Go figure why I have no faith in the legal system.
Click to expand...

This may sound bad ( on my part), but I'm afraid that I don't believe you - at least not the way that you've presented the story.

The level of fine is wrong and speeding whilst under the influance would attract a 12 month ban at the very least unless there were exceptional mitigating circumstances.

You also have to take into account what Garry said; people are tried for the actual crime that they commit, not the crime's resultant effects.
 
faddius said:
I had a friend killed by a drunk driver, the driver was even caught speeding 100m up the road by a camera, doing twice the legal limit.

£80 fine and a slap on the wrist was her punishment.

Go figure why I have no faith in the legal system.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but I simply do not believe that. If you kill someone while over the drink drive limit you are going to prison unless there is very exceptional circumstances. I mean its a 60quid fine and 3 points just for breaking the speed limit!

Steve
 
Last edited:
faddius said:
I had a friend killed by a drunk driver, the driver was even caught speeding 100m up the road by a camera, doing twice the legal limit.

£80 fine and a slap on the wrist was her punishment.

Go figure why I have no faith in the legal system.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right to me either tbh. Are you sure on your facts?
 
It's covered by s41 Criminal Justice Act 1925, it includes taking photos of people in the Court, defendants, witnesses, judges etc, and also of people entering or leaving the Court, its building and precincts of the building. I heard that Highbury Mag Ct in London wanted to instal cctv in the public areas outside the actual court, but the request was apparently turned down because of this legislation.
 
his brother gets just 30 months for killing someone for dangerous driving
Click to expand...

What was his brother charged with?

You see, there's 2 different things here, his driving may have been reckless, but he may not have been charged with causing death by reckless driving. I don't doubt that someone died, it may however not have been provable that his death was a result of the reckless driving.
If he was charged with the 'simple' offence of reckless, then 30 months is a reasonable sentence.
As for assaulting a judge, if done in court it's an afront to justice and the Crown (Judges appear as the direct representative of the Crown), and therefore very seriously treated.

The problem with this sort of subject is that people will try and compare based on an overall incident, not the offences charged or convicted of.

A good example is Person A is stopped for driving at 40mph, is breath tested and lost his license for 12 months.

Person B was involved in an accident, someone died, and he was breath tested, and also lost his license for 12 months.

The natural assumption is someone died in the second example therefore they should have had a higher sentence. The problem is that they were charged with the same offence, drink drive, because although someone died, there's no evidence that his death as a result of the drink driving.

Because the offence was the same, the courts must sentence consistently, and they cannot sentence for something that, while it may well be a result, the accused hasn't been charged with.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
What was his brother charged with?

You see, there's 2 different things here, his driving may have been reckless, but he may not have been charged with causing death by reckless driving. I don't doubt that someone died, it may however not have been provable that his death was a result of the reckless driving.
If he was charged with the 'simple' offence of reckless, then 30 months is a reasonable sentence.
As for assaulting a judge, if done in court it's an afront to justice and the Crown (Judges appear as the direct representative of the Crown), and therefore very seriously treated.

The problem with this sort of subject is that people will try and compare based on an overall incident, not the offences charged or convicted of.

A good example is Person A is stopped for driving at 40mph, is breath tested and lost his license for 12 months.

Person B was involved in an accident, someone died, and he was breath tested, and also lost his license for 12 months.

The natural assumption is someone died in the second example therefore they should have had a higher sentence. The problem is that they were charged with the same offence, drink drive, because although someone died, there's no evidence that his death as a result of the drink driving.

Because the offence was the same, the courts must sentence consistently, and they cannot sentence for something that, while it may well be a result, the accused hasn't been charged with.
Click to expand...

A good post. Nicely explained (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top