A computer thief could not understand why he was charged with burglary because he had not set foot in the house he raided, a court heard.Wha..?
Robert Mochrie, mitigating, told the court: “He didn't appreciate he was committing a burglary at the time.
“It was not the case where he actually entered the property as one would ordinarily expect. He broke the window and it was his hand that went in.”Oh! Right. Well, that's clearly differ...
Wait! No, it's not! The judge'll never fall for that, especially when he's a prolific burglar and so should really know the rules of the game?
But then, I remember what passes for a 'justice system' here...
Crozier faced a minimum three-year prison sentence because he has two previous convictions for burglary, Teesside Crown Court was told.
But the judge, Recorder William Lowe, QC, accepted there were “unusual features” to to case and jailed the 24-year-old for 18 months.*sighs*
Mr Recorder Lowe said: “It is a burglary in law and I understand you might see it somewhat differently.”Is it me, or does he almost sound...apologetic...about having to pass sentence at all?
H/T: The incomparable Anna Raccoon via email