Millbank Fire Extinguisher Sentence.

[dave21478]

Put the thesaurus away chief. Nobody is impressed.

[PaulT]

[quote user="Chancer"]

I think the only fools are perhaps those who are having their chains yanked and that have responded to his thread.

Which I suppose now includes me [:D]

I think it may have got more response than the bullfighting thread [:)]

[/quote]

So someone disruptes a serious thread stopping debate

That's what rioters do is it not - disrupt and destroy debate

[Chancer]

Do you mean me?

[NuBeginnings]

[quote user="powerdesal"]Charity does not come into anything about this case. The scrote got off with a light sentence IMO, attempted murder should be more severely punished.[/quote]

Could not have said it better my self.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Quillan"]It will be in Parliament Square once 'The Guildhall' have been refurbished and modified. However you are evading the issue that your wrong and ClarkKent is right.[/quote]

No Q miners & bullfighters never avoid issues; I maliciously used the Supreme Court rather than the Old Bailey. The location of the Supreme Court in the Old Middlesex Guildhall building in Parliament Square is a relatively new development. I frankly didn't expect any one to pick it up. Now I have got that "mea culpa" off my chest ( I do hope you have a Thesaurus at hand if necessary[Www]), the thrust of my argument was the principle of the impartiality of justice and blindfolded statues are found in other jurisdictions.

 Now, of course, due to security, no longer possible but my thoughts go back to the days when at the weekend parking behind the Old Bailey was a convenient spot when attending dinners in one of the Inns of Court; observed her on many occasions but never realised she had no blindfold. I can only excuse my lack of perspicacity on the very steep angle when viewed from the street below coupled with my brainwashed mental images derived from other jurisdictions.

[PaulT]

[quote user="Chancer"]Do you mean me?[/quote]

No - It was re your comment about not joining in the debate but my comment was aimed at PPP and his ludicrous posts

And yes, I should stop posting to this thread and leave it all to the new Solicitor General

[pachapapa]

Well thanks for your replies; unfortunately no resolution to the 30 months or 32 months conundrum.

In the event of the Court of Appeal reducing the sentence below the 2.5 years threshold, it will give me great pleasure in returning to gloat.

The appeal will of course be covered by Legal Aid.[:D][:D][:D]

 

[woolybanana]

And yet again justice will not be done if they do as the yob tendancy, whom you support, will have won!

[Chancer]

[quote user="PaulT"]

[quote user="Chancer"]Do you mean me?[/quote]

No - It was re your comment about not joining in the debate but my comment was aimed at PPP and his ludicrous posts

And yes, I should stop posting to this thread and leave it all to the new Solicitor General

[/quote]

Well it was him that started the thread hence my saying "his thread" not "this thread".

Quite an acheivement to have started a thread and then to disrupt the serious discussion with ludicrous posts!

All your chains are being yanked [:P] Mine included [:(]

[Russethouse]

Have I missed something ? Is it definitely going to the Court of Appeal ?  Given that this person is 18 and yet the judge has stressed that he will serve his sentence in a young offenders institution he might be wise to put up and shut up.

 

[Gardener]

[quote user="AnOther"]

In the sense of the life consequences of a 32 month sentence as opposed to 30 which I was unaware of (wondered why the apparently odd tariff) I can at least appreciate where PPP is coming from in characterising the sentence as vindictive but am undecided as to whether I agree with him or not. I think I'd need to know a lot more about the character of the defendant to make that call and perhaps some social enquiries might have not been out of place before passing sentence, some haste does seem evident.

As an aside though had someone died as a result of this act of supreme recklessness would the charge not have been one of Involuntary manslaughter ?

This arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.

[/quote]

i find myself in agreement with the first part of this post.

a young man of presumably previous good character , lost his head in a moment of madness and now has a permanent criminal record;

no doubt someone could have been hurt or killed ( just as someone could be a driver 2x the limit - they will get punished but not for what might have happened) ) but no one was injured , and that was more by luck than judgement.

This was a case that was high profile due to the publicity it had received and I am sure that had a lot of impact in the sentencing. .

[Chancer]

I also thought of the parallels between for example cases of driving without due care and attention where someone was killed, the greiveing relatives call for a custodial sentence, some even create action groups to demand tougher sentences in the future, quite rightly in these cases the judges usually give out sentences that reflect the offence not the dreadfull result, all of us have probably diven without due care at some time but there but for the grace of god without catastrophic consequences.

That said what the lad did IMHO is more like reckless endangerment which quite rightly is punishable by a custodial sentence.

If a policeman/woman or a member of the public had been injured or killed would we even be having this discussion?

I do understand though the significance of the 30 plus 2 month sentence, and as PPP said it would perhaps be easier to swallow had it been  5 years to make an example of him.

[Russethouse]

Does it occur to any of you that the Judge thought the offence worthy of a sentence carrying a crinal record but kept it as short as possible so the young man has a chance to continue his education ?

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="Chancer"]

That said what the lad did IMHO is more like reckless endangerment which quite rightly is punishable by a custodial sentence.

[/quote]

Does "endangerment" exist in English law? I thought it was an American term. Is not the English offence "criminal negligence"?

[PaulT]

[quote user="Chancer"]

I do understand though the significance of the 30 plus 2 month sentence, and as PPP said it would perhaps be easier to swallow had it been  5 years to make an example of him.

[/quote]

And I was not going to post any more on this......

My recollection is that the judge REDUCED the sentence he was going to give in recognition of the mothers action in persuading her son to give himself up (before he was arrested).

Therefore, the judge was going to give him a sentence that stayed with him for life and he has done just that but for a lesser period due to the mother.

And as for the driving analogy - it is not a cse of someones lack of concentration meaning that they drove carelessly, the analogy for this in relation to the incident is that the driver drove a car straight at a group of people but by a very lucky fluke missed them. That is not driving carelessly or dangerously it is one of attempted murder.

Paul

[AnOther]

Reckless endangerment exists under Scottish law I believe but not English.

[Iceni]

I believe that violent mobs should be controlled by bulldozers, stocks should replace ASBOs and flogging brought back to lower the prison population so you will not be surprised that I am delighted that this offence was punished with a prison sentence. Sadly though I doubt that he will do 32 months or anywhere near.

I note that mummy talked him into turning himself in - had he not done so would she have done it for him? I fear not.

John

[Chancer]

I probably didnt explain myself properly and the driving analogy may not have helped.

I agree with you Paul what he did was not careless or due care but at the minimum reckless, possibly attempted muder.

I used the word reckless endangerment instead of dangerous as it conveys the message that the accused knew that his actions endangered others, I believe that is the burden of proof between a charge of careless driving and reckless driving, that a reasonable person would know that what they were doing could kill or injure someone.

I dont think that any of us can decide which it was from the video clip without magnification, he could have been thowing it without looking/caring where it fell which to me is reckless, he could have been throwing it carefuly at the plod which to me is attempted murder, he could also have been carefully throwing it at the clear area cordoned off by the Police to frighten but not injure them, I suppose that could have been used as a defence but someone equally could have chosen that moment to enter the cordon or leave the building.

Videos whilst telling less lies than selective photographs are still only a snapshot in time, I reckon the Police had cordoned off the area for safety because misilles/objects had already been hailing down from the roof, he may have just upped the anti, nonetheless he deserves to be punished regardless of whether other casseurs got away with throwing other things.