Lunatic British Justice...

Chris. WTF?

I noticed on another post you talked about British Justice getting serious about edged weapons....I wonder what this clown's approach would be?

Judge calls burglar "Brave"

Nick

And I thought our judges were clowns....unbelievable.

Yep,another lunatic judge

Quite common on these shores.

This one has been doing the rounds as you can imagine. It's looking very likely that Judge Bowers will lose his job.

I am told that the background and context to the comments made was somewhat different to most reports. The judge was in general praising Rochford for kicking a heroin habbit and for gaining employment. It appears as if Rochford genuinely has made significant changes in his life and these crimes happened before his reform. Bowers also accepted that sending Rochford to jail is likely to mean a relapse into drug use and subsequent crimes to fund that drug use.

I have also been told that when Bowers called Rochford "Brave" he was actually quite aggressively scathing about the nerve and "brass neck" of scum who break into homes. Don't know if he simply mispoke somewhat or whether he really is as big an idiot as the media are making him out to be but as always I feel there is probably more to the event than is being reported.

As usual, the truth is probably less juicy a story. I can tell you in all seriousness that when you get one up in front of you who is making an effort and is looking like the one in a million who may actually not reoffend it really makes your day. Bowers was probably just loving every minute of having cause for some slight optimism.

I must admit I suspected something like what Chris said there. That it was completely wrung out by the press...

Didn't you have an incident like that Nick with local Coppers?

From what I read in the Guardian (can't find the link off-hand), the judge clearly used the word 'brave' when making reference to how desperate a person must be in order to break into someone's house. It was undoubtedly a thoughtless use of the term but really deserved of all this criticism? I don't think so. He should certainly have been given the opportunity - made - to elaborate publicly about what he meant by his statement but then that wouldn't provide a money making opportunity to utterly fabricate a scandal would it. But then the link was for the Sun.

And that dirty rag is the most (ahem) 'read' (ahem) 'news'paper in UK - we're fu#£ed!

Take care,

Zak

Two thugs have been jailed after targeting the Blind Beggar pub in Whitechapel after mistakenly believing members of the English Defence League were inside.

Shah Ali, of Hanbury Street, and Ruhal Roof, of Cambridge Heath Road, together with Mahfuz Rayhan, of Barking, were among a 30-strong mob which attacked the pub to confront followers of the far right political movement.

Snaresbrook Crown Court heard terrified patrons at the bar found themselves “under siege” as missiles including glasses, bottles, road signs and street furniture were hurled into the beer garden.

Some of the gang forced their way into the garden, before a group led by Roof charged into the pub.

The attack, which took place last October, caused £6,000 worth of damage to the pub, the court heard.

Sentencing Ali and Roof, both 22, to 18 weeks in prison, Judge Alan Pardoe QC said: “The three of you have pleaded guilty to violent disorder and submitted your motivation for taking part in this violence was that you heard members of the English Defence League were inside the pub.

“All three of you now accept the people in the pub were not in fact members of the EDL.

“I must make it crystal clear that if they had been, that would have provided no justification for your activities. It’s not open to anyone to attack anyone of membership or presumed membership of any lawful organisation.”

Rayhan, the pair’s 18-year-old accomplice, was handed a community order with 200 hours unpaid work and 12 months supervision.

link
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/crime/jail_for_pair_who_trashed_blind_beggar_pub_believing_edl_members_inside_1_1511247

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Afghan refugee who helped set a police car ablaze in the London riots has been let off because of the violence he saw in his home country.

Nooragha Zadran, 18, said he was only five when both of his parents were killed in the Afghanistan when a bomb struck their home.

He was left to fend for his younger brother by begging on the streets. He left the boy in a playground and never found him again.

He arrived in Britain as a young boy and had been in the care of social services since.

But during the disorder that blighted Britain last August he threw rocks at police and lit the rag that was used to set fire to a parked car in Lewisham, southeast London, a court heard.

However he walked free from court today after Judge Nigel Seed QC described his case as "exceptional."

"No other defendant will have appeared in front of the courts in such circumstances. That is why you are not being sentenced to two to three years in prison," he said.

Inner London Crown Court heard that Zadran, who works at a mobile phone kiosk in Lewisham, is 'extremely vulnerable' and prone to exploitation as a result of his childhood.

He also suffers from severe post traumatic stress disorder, stress and anxiety, and was handed a 12 months sentence, suspended for two years.

The judge said: "I take into account the fact that at an early age you were living in war torn Afghanistan where you would have been exposed to violence everyday.

"The family home was bombed and the explosion killed your mother and father, leaving you and your siblings orphans.

"You were left to beg because of your destitution.

"You left your younger brother in a playground to try and beg, and he then disappeared and all this happened before you were ten years old.

"You suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, and a particularly complex form of post traumatic stress disorder, which is very serious and makes you vulnerable to exploitation, and unable to think clearly."

Neil Griffin, defending had told the court that he had got involved in "half an hour of madness" and he wished "he could turn the clock back."

Prosecutor Gordon Carse told the court that Zadran had been caught after a media appeal in December, and was spotted in Lewisham town centre in his mobile phone kiosk.

"There was a group of young men, who had began instigating attacks on the police, throwing things at them," he said.

"On CCTV the defendant is seen breaking up a brick and taking the pieces and throwing it at them.

"The group moves away and he is with them. There is a blue Citroen vehicle which is alight, and the defendant lights a cloth from it and goes toward a red Vauxhall Tigra.

"There is a basis of plea that he did not set fire to the car, but left the burning cloth near it, knowing others would. The Vauxhall Tigra is then consumed by flames."

Zadran was ordered to pay £2,000 to the owner of the car, and required to attend mental health treatment as part of his sentence.

Zadran, of Rotherhithe, southeast London, admitted one count of violent disorder and arson.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9534209/Afghan-who-helped-torch-car-in-London-riots-spared-jail-due-to-traumatic-childhood.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Tony,

Not sure what comment you were making about the events you posted?

Were you making a point about the people, events or the sentencing? Or all of them?

Chris wrote:Hey Tony,

Not sure what comment you were making about the events you posted?

Were you making a point about the people, events or the sentencing? Or all of them?

All of them.

Seriously though,18 weeks for leading a mob into a pub and another walking free from court after rioting.Something is clearly wrong here.Two guys in Warrington were sent down for four years for talking about rioting on Facebook and another got a custodial sentence for stealing a bottle of water.

It seems during the riots there were many disproportionate sentences deilvered in the hope to disuade others from jumping on board the riot express. This is tactically sound and public order should be priority, particularly during times of chaos, unfortunately there was little or no consistency in sentencing, not least because the whole situation developed quickly and judges were left to their discretion to irradicate the problem quickly.

Tony,

whilst the examples you gave of lenient sentences are undeniably slack (and there are many, many more) to compare '2guys talking about rioting' on facebook was also slightly misrepresentative of the whole picture. The 'two guys' were made an example of because they were attempting to arrange and encourage rioting in their home town amidst rioting in other places in the country and as such they were deemed to pose a great risk to public safety - and rightly so. 4 years was still ridiculous but your representation of the facts was almost 'Sun style' misleading in light of the actual facts. It's this very lack of fact that encourages the problems associated with making assumptions for oneself as to whether or not decisions were right or wrong and why they were right or wrong. In this instance, it's purely 'banter' on SP dot com but look what it did for the poor judge who was the original topic of this thread.

Here's the full article. (as I say, it was still well over the top)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailed

Take good care,

Zak

All I can say is that there are a huge amount of variables which have to be taken into account when deciding on sentences for the criminally guilty.
C
First of all is the offence. WHAT the person has been charged with has a massive bearing on the sentence. Judges have quite strict sentencing bands and if they move outside of those bands (up or down) they have serious questions to answer both in open court.

THEN... you have the aggravating and mitigating factors for that offence. Each offence has factors called out specifically will impact on whether the sentence falls in the top end or the low end of the sentencing band.

THEN... did the defendant plead guilty? Did they plead guilty at the earliest opportunity or on the day of the trial. An early guilty plea will usually result in a 30% reduction in sentence. So you sentence the offender and then you drop a third of that sentence. If they plead guilty on the day of the trial then it's usually a 10% reduction.

None of that will ever be reported by a media which is only interested in outrage. Not excusing or saying that mistakes don't happen. I'm just saying that there is a lot more going on than the general public may think.

One thing I will say, every District Judge or Magistrate I have ever met genuinely tries to do there very best to ensure that justice is served.

Couldn't agree more with Chris.

It is precisely this lack of surrounding facts and the media's love of 'outrage' that causes problems, speculation and general 'bovva'.

Take care,

Zak

The sentencing over the past 40 years in Britain and New Zealand has done nothing to prevent the public from crime....the rise in crime over that period does not lie as that is during time the judges and government decided to take into account the rights of the offender (pathetic jail terms, useless community sentences etc) over the rights of the victim and the rights of the public to live in a crime free society.

I could go on...

Mr Nobody wrote:The sentencing over the past 40 years in Britain and New Zealand has done nothing to prevent the public from crime....the rise in crime over that period does not lie as that is during time the judges and government decided to take into account the rights of the offender (pathetic jail terms, useless community sentences etc) over the rights of the victim and the rights of the public to live in a crime free society.

I could go on...

Tbh Mr N. I see the two main issues as being government direction to keep as many offenders out of expensive prisons as possible. AND, drug problems. Vast majority we see have serious drug or alcohol addictions.

Add into that the fact that a number of addicts try to use prison as rehab and it is all an unholy mess.

Yes and yes.

Drug and alcohol addiction is a HUGE driver of crime where I work. I hate the cooks/cultivaters/manufacturers/importers/suppliers/dealers of drugs.

Fortunately, I'm in a position where I can do something about it....too bad the criminal justice system doesn't