Victim Blaming, Part 405

The 36-year-old victim's hand was severed, but for a three centimetre piece of skin, when he was attacked outside the Fountain public house, in Humberstone Gate, Leicester.

The city's Crown Court yesterday heard the weapon sliced through bone, nerves, arteries and tendons in his wrist.

Surgeons were able to reattach the hand – although it was not said in court how much use of his hand he has recovered.

I hate to be churlish (no, stop laughing at the back!), but having a hand ‘severed but for still being attached’ is like being ‘a little bit pregnant’, isn’t it?

Carl Matthew Peters (28) yesterday pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm, with intent, on the night of September 18.

The court was told there was an incident between Peters and the victim at the public house earlier in the evening.

Peters, of Yeoman Street, in the city centre, left the pub and went to his home, several minutes walk away.

He then armed himself with a foot-long machete and returned about 10pm.

Peters waited outside the pub and, when his victim came out, he struck him with the machete.

Pretty indefensible?

The court heard that Peters claimed the victim had first assaulted him, and that he said the victim had gone outside to confront him.

Avik Mukherjee, prosecuting, said the Crown did not accept all of Peters' claims.

Well, that’s good to know…

He added: "He accepts he returned with the machete and caused the injury.

"He claims that when he left the flat he didn't intend to use it, but intended to scare the complainant. Whatever he thought when he left the flat he must have formed another view within a short time.

"The complainant had no opportunity (to do anything) when he came out of the pub, because he was struck by this defendant."

So, what’s the defence going to be?

Judge Robert Brown asked defence advocate Helen Johnson: "He pleads guilty to the severing of the hand with the machete?"

"Yes he does," replied Ms Johnson.

She added: "However, we say the victim's conduct on the night was clearly aggressive."

What the hell does that make the perpetrator’s conduct..?!?

The court heard the victim was someone with previous convictions.

Interesting! You can’t hear about the attacker’s previous convictions until after sentence.

But you can hear about the victim’s.