Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Just What Is The Point Of A ‘Suspended Sentence’ Then?

A football manager with a suspended prison sentence hanging over him begged door staff not to report him to police after flooring a clubber with one punch.
Well, maybe the sentence wasn’t for drunken viole…

Oh:
The 23-year-old was given a suspended prison sentence in January last year after being part of a group that attacked two brothers in the city centre.
Well, that’s his goose cooked, then.

Ha! Only kidding!
But despite hitting another man during a nightclub argument about a dropped mobile phone, he has again avoided prison.
*sigh*
Recorder Sarah Vaughan-Jones QC decided to extend the period of the suspended prison sentence and ordered that he do unpaid work and serve a curfew.
And why?
Anna Midgley, defending, said after initially pleading with door staff not to tell the police, Robson had co-operated completely with authorities.

Miss Midgley said Robson was a young man who worked full time, and who was remorseful and managed a football club in Kingswood, showing a "degree of responsibility."
Well, maybe he’s only a drunken violent little scumbag when he’s had a drink, so…

Oh. Clearly not:
Robson was suspended for two matches last month for use of offensive language directed at match officials.
Isn’t it about time the football authorities started to take the action that the magistrates clearly are loathe to?

Or is it ok to get drunk, beat up strangers and abuse officials so long as you aren’t racist or homophobic?

4 comments:

The no jail law said...

I could not possibly comment on this case, as indeed neither can any person who did not attend the trial in its entirety, but I begin to suspect that all legal officials have one thing and one thing only drummed in to them:

No matter what happens, no matter what the crime, do NOT put any one in jail.

Able said...

It seems that alcohol is almost as good as having a pussy-pass, doesn't it?

Recent personal experience:

Due to circumstances I've lived in a shared house for over a year. The upstairs neighbour drinks heavily and regularly disturbs all with loud music, shouting to himself and smashing furniture at two/three in a morning. He has verbally assaulted and threatened every other resident in the house, has been warned on multiple occasions by the landlord and has driven two residents to move out (police want nothing to do with any complaints).

A few weeks ago he, drunk as usual, grabbed some of my neighbour property, which he had unwisely left on the stairs, and started screaming abuse whilst throwing it down the stairs. Neighbour comes out of room and a shouted argument ensues. I stand at my door and watch as neighbour regains his property and with a few choice words retires to his room.

Yesterday I learnt (through the grapevine) that the neighbour had been arrested and was facing a court appearance for common assault (over six weeks later) and they had attempted to have his dog described as dangerous, the dog is a shivering coward and wasn't even present. Being an honest citisen (read naive idiot in retrospect) I went to the police station to make a statement about what I had witnessed.

Guess what? Yep, the officer refused to take a statement as it portrayed the drunken instigator in a bad light and was prejudicial to his case. The officer insinuated I was either lying or had been put up to it by my neighbour. He also stated an investigation had proved my neighbour had committed a serious crime and would be judged in court.

SO! The police here apparently, without bothering to speak to any witnesses (of which there were two others after myself) make a judgment and then not only don't bother collecting any evidence that might contradict this but actually refuse to record such evidence when it is presented to them FFS


And the drunks new favourite saying if anyone dares to suggest they wish to sleep? 'Fuck off or I'll call the police and get you done for assaulting me'.

Just what happened to the justice system in this country?

Able said...

Sorry for the verbosity and off at a tangent!

It's just that whilst I always expected a solicitor to pick and choose evidence to portray their client in the best light, isn't it the job of the police to gather all the evidence, not just the bits which support the opinion they've jumped to before knowing anything?

JuliaM said...

"..but I begin to suspect that all legal officials have one thing and one thing only drummed in to them:

No matter what happens, no matter what the crime, do NOT put any one in jail."


With the corollary that if it's unavoidable, it should be the shortest time possible!

"It seems that alcohol is almost as good as having a pussy-pass, doesn't it?"

Yes! It really does. And yet, no-one's ever forced to drink, are they?

"Guess what? Yep, the officer refused to take a statement as it portrayed the drunken instigator in a bad light and was prejudicial to his case."

Eh? What happened to 'we just gather the evidence and let the CPS decide'?

"He also stated an investigation had proved my neighbour had committed a serious crime.."

Err, again. no. An investigation can only throw up evidence to suggest a serious crime has been committed. It's for a court to prove the offence!

Never mind 'what's happened to this country', what's happened to the police!?