Skip to main content

Fire extinguisher throwing student gaoled

I have just read this story on the BBC News website.

That he went to prison is no great shock and he should just be grateful that he did not hurt or kill anybody else he'd have been facing a far longer sentence.

It frightens me how people can lose control and do something stupid in a moment of madness.  I once represented a student from the London School of Economics who had come from a good school and had excellent prospects until he caved in a man's head with a brick - the man survived but only just!

I don't know if I can say I'll never lose it and do something stupid, but I do my best to stay out of trouble.


  1. Yes I know - in my time I've written reports on several people who killed with with one blow to the head, or where the victim struck their head on the ground. One seconds reaction leading to manslaughter or murder charges and a life sentence. Alcohol is often involved and the results are invariably sobering.


  2. Looking at the CPS sentencing manual (too lazy to see if there are Sentencing Advisory Panel (as they were) guidelines), this seems like a pretty stiff sentence. Based on the scant case law mentioned by the CPS, I would have said that 18 months would have been more appropriate.

  3. Fortunately CPS aren't involved in sentencing. I think DL is right on this wh should a moments madness be an excuse for a lenient sentence. This is spot on to me this was reckless endangerment to life. I am saddened by some if the comments from Magistrate colleagues who think this excessive.

  4. Wait a minute. Who says he 'lost control' or acted in a 'moment of madness' apart from his Defence (who would say that anyway)? Have you considered that he may be a nasty young man with a history of violent outbursts? Just because his mum was at Court and he was an A Level student does not mean he is some kind of victim of circumstance. Does anyone in the public arena know of his previous behaviour? Like everyone else you have rushed to judgement on this; Wollard MIGHT be a vile individual who had this coming for many years for all we know.

  5. And there's the difference between us Gadget. I made the assumption that he's basically a decent person who lost control.

    You assume he's the scum of the earth and should be treated at all times as a "vile individual".

  6. i think it depends on the person even if he or she was in the state of madness if he has self-control he cannot commit crime such as murdering other people. People Who are on this stage seems to have psychological problem.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…