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.

Comments

  1. Jim Brown11 January 2011 at 15:19

    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.

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marcin11 January 2011 at 15:52

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. mcmrjp15 January 2011 at 13:52

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9 February 2011 at 08:44

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Defence Brief9 February 2011 at 16:26

    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".

    ReplyDelete
  6. criminal history18 February 2011 at 15:55

    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.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with the
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an
More gibberish >>