Monday 18 June 2012

Really Struggling With The Mitigation Here...

Steven Donoghue, defending, told the court: 'His initial motives were good.'
Riiiight...

Still, weddings and fighting, they go together, don't they?
Allen, of Hirwaun, South Wales, admitted common assault and was given a three-month jail sentence, suspended for 18 months.
He was also ordered to carry out 150 hours unpaid community work, put under a 12-week night time curfew and told he must pay £250 compensation to the injured bridesmaid.
Yes, you read that right.

Bridesmaid.

7 comments:

Brontosaurus said...

Just pointing out the CPS have done their usual trick of watering down the charge to the lowest possible.
She was knocked out for several minutes. She was bleeding and bruised. In anyones book this offender is guilty of ABH (Assault causing actual bodily harm.) The CPS have charged common assault where case law dictates the injury should be 'transient or trifling.'
If you google 'assault charging standards' you will see how the CPS have watered down all the assault charges. This is solely to ensure that offenders plead guilty to lesser charges and the CPS make their targets. Justice for victims doesn't come into it.

Fidel Cuntstruck said...

Ahhh .. but in these peoples lives a wedding just isn't a wedding without a good scrap at some point during the proceedings - I think it's all part of getting to know each other. So the CPS may have been doing us all a favour by not wasting Taxpayers money on a protracted and expensive trial where in all likelihood the court case would never have happened because the "victim" would have dropped the charges as she's now living with her assailant .... innit?

Surreptitious Evil said...

Oh, be kind to him.

He only misheard slightly when he was told the best man was supposed to "shag" the bridesmaid. He heard "slug".

Simple mistake when you've had a couple of gallons of "wife beater" as a warm-up.

Anonymous said...

As a double victim (one of assault and then the CPS charging standards) I discovered how they work "to save the taxpayer money". A person is arrested on a particular charge - in my case, GBH - the (usually legally aid funded) defence briefs spoke to the CPS regarding these charges. Knowing that the CPS have targets to meet, and boxes to tick, with regards to results and budgets, they state their clients will plead not guilty to GBH but guilty to Common Assault. To ensure the boxes are ticked, CPS agrees. In my case the offenders were given community service (which they didn't do) and ordered to pay me compensation (which they didn't pay). The end result is that CPS is happy because they achieved convictions and remained within budget; the defence briefs are happy because they ensured their clients received a smaller punishment than originally thought; the offenders are happy because they kicked the sh*t out of someone and more or less got away with it and the Bench is happy because they dispensed justice on the facts placed before them. The only person who is not happy is the victim, but then they don't count. They never do.

Anonymous said...

Well, in mitigation it did actually defuse the situation. Once the bridesmaid was unconscious, she and her boyfriend were certainly not arguing anymore. I mean he tried tackling the boyfriend but that didn't seem to work. So the next logical step is to move on to the other participant in the quarrel. Seems to have worked. I feel his lawyer failed to represent his good initial motives.

JuliaM said...

"...the CPS have done their usual trick of watering down the charge to the lowest possible."

Yup! It's just a game to them, isn't it?

"Ahhh .. but in these peoples lives a wedding just isn't a wedding without a good scrap at some point during the proceedings..."

I suspect you may be right.

"Oh, be kind to him.

He only misheard slightly when he was told the best man was supposed to "shag" the bridesmaid. He heard "slug". "


:D

JuliaM said...

"The only person who is not happy is the victim, but then they don't count. They never do."

Depressingly true.

" I feel his lawyer failed to represent his good initial motives."

Heh!