A young mum who giggled after leaving an innocent man fighting for his life has had her sentence cut following an appeal to the country's top judges.Note that description – ‘young mum’. Conjures up quite a bucolic image, doesn’t it? The reality is somewhat different:
Michelle Roberts, 19, of Zulu Road, New Basford, admitted causing grievous bodily harm with intent after she and boyfriend Paul Creighton attacked 37-year-old Stuart Flynn.If I had my way, there’d be no such thing as a concurrent sentence.
Roberts, who also admitted producing cannabis and breaching a conditional discharge, was locked up for eight-and-a-half years at Nottingham Crown Court in September.
But senior judges cut her sentence to eight years after ruling that her detention terms should have run concurrently, rather than consecutively. She will be entitled to automatic release after serving four years.
Why does she deserve leniency?
Roberts' lawyers claimed her sentences for the three offences should have been concurrent because she is young and had not been in custody before.Translation: ‘Hasn’t been caught/got her pussy pass before appearing in court before…’
Mr Justice Maddison agreed, saying: "We do accept, given the length of the major sentence and the age of the appellant, that it would have been appropriate to impose the other sentences concurrently with each other and concurrent to the eight-year sentence."I guess idiot Judge Maddison doesn’t have any teenage sons who might fall foul of this skank and the next man she hooks up with when she gets out…
9 comments:
Concurrent sentences are, frankly, ridiculous.
On the other hand it does let the rabble out quicker and makes room for a fresh load of thugs and thugettes to get free lodging and food.
Four years. For joining in on an attack trying to kill someone. The charge was originally attempted murder (good) but was downgraded to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, which both Creighton and Roberts admitted at Nottingham Crown Court.
(We don't do plea bargaining, apparently. Maybe the prosecution were afraid the jury would let them walk, always a possibility these days).
Anyway, mind your eyes. Here are the original pictures of the charmers:
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Thugs-laughed-hugged-vicious-attack/story-13349614-detail/story.html
It shouldn't matter who a victim is - that's not justice either - but a reminder that Mr Flynn was a youthful-looking assistant scientist for the Environment agency, which since his brain was mushed may never be possible again, and his wife was a school teacher but has had to give up work to care for her severely disabled husband.
Then the court spits on the pair of them and instead of telling Roberts she already got as lucky as she is ever likely to in having the charges down-graded, they reward her for this atrocity.
It's time that risk was involved in appealing a sentence. "Your penalty can go up as well as down".
Julia.. Isn't that: '... Michelle Roberts, 19, of Zulu Road, New Bastard, admitted causing grievous bodily harm with intent after she and boyfriend Paul Cretin attacked 37-year-old Stuart Flynn?'
I think it scans better.
"She will be entitled to automatic release after serving four years"
{{Blood boils}}
Who does it serve to pretend the sentence is eight years then ?
I live in hope of the judge increasing the sentence of one of these chancers appeals.
Who does it serve to pretend the sentence is eight years then ?
Ken Clarke.
Judges are being pai a fortune to dish out derisory sentences. I think more people are coming round to the idea of sorting things out themselves.
Judges are fast becoming an irrelevance...might aswell let muslims take over and have Sharia Law. Part of a grand scheme to turn us into part of the Caliphate, let's be done with it.
Several things come to mind when I read the article linked to by Woman on a Raft:
1 - Why was she not also given an indeterminate sentence if they were both involved?
2 - How much smack has she taken to look like that at 19?
There is only so much room in the prison system. So think of concurrent sentences as a way to clear out space and move the next lot in.
"It's time that risk was involved in appealing a sentence. "Your penalty can go up as well as down"."
Agreed!
"I think it scans better."
Me too.
"I think more people are coming round to the idea of sorting things out themselves."
That's the danger, isn't it?
Post a Comment