Wednesday, 24 June 2009

'Not A Violent Young Man'...

A man was kicked so hard he was left with a vivid shoe print on his face.

John Alderton was punched to the ground and repeatedly kicked after he told two men he had not got 40p for a phone call.
And their mouthpiece had a sterling excuse for leniency:
Tony Loder, defending Lee, said: “He is full of remorse for what he did and accepts his behaviour was totally out of order.

“He was remanded in custody as a result of the offence and has been working hard in prison in an effort to put this behind him.

“He has been accepted as a listener with the Samaritans and is helping other young prisoners with their problems.”
Well, theier website does say that 'Everyone has it in them to be a Samaritans volunteer' but I don't think that's quite what people imagined...
Richard Barton, defending Lane, said: “This is not a violent young man but he accepts joining in the attack after it had started.

“This is his first conviction and he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.”
I suspect it won't be his last. I also suspect it's not his first. Merely the first he was caught doing.

The judge was only half swayed by this:
Judge Richard Hayward told Lee: “You have had problems in your life but that cannot be an excuse for gratuitous violence on a total stranger.

“Mr Alderton was left with the imprint of your trainer on his face and he was shocked and distressed by what happened to him.

“Only a prison sentence is appropriate to punish you, to mark public disapproval of those who use such violence and to try to deter others.”

Lee, who has previous convictions, was jailed for 18 months and Lane was given a 52-week prison sentence suspended for two years.
Which I suppose is better than nothing. But not much.

Let's hope the next person walking through Brighton late and night is Judge Richard Hayward. And that he doesn't have any change on him...

2 comments:

  1. The way things were in Britain when I left I'm surprised he was remanded and amazed he got more than a cursory time already served sentence. But one thing I noticed might explain it:

    “This is his first conviction and he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.”
    ...and...
    Lee, who has previous convictions...

    I expect the lawyer meant first conviction for a violent offence, and tried to pretend other criminality somehow didn't count. That might be why the judge wasn't swayed enough to let him off with a non custodial sentence. As far as the sentence itself goes, if he really is turning over a new leaf it's probably about right I think. If it's a ploy for a soft sentence then the little shit's playing the system perfectly. Unfortunately only time will tell, but if it turns out to be the latter the next judge needs to throw the fucking book at him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I expect the lawyer meant first conviction for a violent offence, and tried to pretend other criminality somehow didn't count."

    Ah, no, there's actually TWO of these scumbags - one with a preious conviction, one without.

    ReplyDelete