Thug Evans was already subject to a suspended jail term for a previous assault when he lashed out at Mr Edmonds, causing him to fall and hit his head on a concrete floor.
The result of the punch was ‘devastating’ for Mr Edmonds, a bachelor who worked as an aerospace testing engineer, the court was told.
Mr Edmonds was helped into court in his wheelchair so he could see Evans, of no fixed address, sentenced to a total of 34 months in jail.Yup. That's all he got. How much of it will he even serve?
Jailing him for 28 months for the assault and implementing his six months suspended sentence consecutively Judge William Hart told him that the public might view the penalty as ‘pathetic.’You don't say!
But sentencing guidelines did not allow him to pass a longer term for the offence - or one which would truly mark the gravity of the consequences of his actions, the judge saidAh, yes, your hands are tied, aren't they? So it's not your fault, is it?
Evans had written a letter to the court saying 'I have wrecked Mr Edmonds’ life and I hate myself for it.'
He added 'I have done wrong in my life but I never thought something like this would happen. I am a stupid boy.
'I swear I have changed and I couldn’t be more sorry. I have wrote to Mr Edmonds to say sorry and I know he could never forgive me but I truly am 100 per cent sorry.'How nice. And how, it turns out, untrue...
Outside court after the hearing Mr Edmonds, who had been brought to court from the spinal injuries unit at Salisbury Hospital, said he had been hoping Evans would get a longer sentence but he understood the judge’s hands were tied.
'I knew Evans had one previous conviction for violence but I didn't realise there were others as well,' he said.
'He told the court he has written to me but I have never had a letter from him. I thought what he wrote that was read out in court did not sound that genuine - it was just the standard sort of thing you would expect him to say in the circumstances.
'I came to court because I just wanted to draw a line under it all. It was quite hard being in court to hear it all and to see him. But it was something I felt I had to do.Still, we can't blame the judge, because he's bound by...
Oh!
Jailing Evans Judge Hart said it was he who had passed the suspended sentence on him last year.
'At that stage it was believed that if given a further chance under supervision you might be able to change your ways. How wrong we were!' said the judge.Who's the 'we' there? Ask anyone, they'd have told you that this creature is a waste of oxygen. Why, when some judges aren't so easily fooled, is nothing ever done about the ones who are?
But sentencing guidelines did not allow him to pass a longer term for the offence
ReplyDeleteWell no , guidelines are exactly that , they are a guide, I don't recall anything that says you cannot step outside the guidelines. Yes it would leave room for an appeal , but there's always the chance that the sentence would be upheld ( not likely I'll admit with the current Court of Appeal)
As is too often the case, press reports are frustratingly vague about the charge actually laid. The Mail refers to a conviction for "unlawful wounding" and as a commenter there points out, this is the root cuase of the problem; if the Criminal Protection Service had not run away from the more difficult task of a GBH charge, the sentence could have been much longer. The judge's earlier leniency might explain why this thug was still at large, but nothing to do with the sentence just passed, the explanation for which lies in the timorous hands of the CPS.
ReplyDeleteOne the night if the attack, 'Evans started dancing around Mr Edmonds asking him if he would like to "bum him". Well, he's now off to a soft-touch prison where most likely he won't need trouble himself to ask for such services. I hope he's well and truly rodgered on a nightly basis!
ReplyDeleteAs Anon of 15.59 suggested, one of the main cause of this lenient sentencing rests with the CPS (Criminal Protection Society/Couldn't Prosecute Satan - take your pick - who work within a framework which takes into account the ratio of successful prosecutions tempered with remaining within a budget. For instance, someone is charged with GBH. The defence brief - usually legal aid funded - suggests that the client will pleead not guilty to the origianl charge but guilty to a charge of a lesser offence, such as ABH or even Common Assault. This is accepted by CPS. The result is that the court dispenses 'Justice' based on th evidence put before it; the defence brief is happy that the client has received a smaller sentence than originally thought; the offender is happy as a sand-boy for committing a really serious offence and receiving a metaphorical slap on the wrist. The only person not happy is the victim who, in the great scheme of things connected with the Justice system, doesn't really count! The other problem is that the majority of MPs are lawyers, barristers or ar spanked on a regular basis by lawyers or barristers and so they have no reason, or intent, to change the status quo. I would suggest that within the next five years, there will be some form of vigilante justice meted out to crooks who are deemed to have 'got away with it'. It has already happened in one or two cases in the London area.
ReplyDeletePenseivat
"...guidelines are exactly that , they are a guide, I don't recall anything that says you cannot step outside the guidelines."
ReplyDeleteThat requires something it seems we no longer desire in our judges. Actual judgement.
"...if the Criminal Protection Service had not run away from the more difficult task of a GBH charge, the sentence could have been much longer."
Indeed!
"Well, he's now off to a soft-touch prison where most likely he won't need trouble himself to ask for such services."
Heh!
" I would suggest that within the next five years, there will be some form of vigilante justice meted out to crooks who are deemed to have 'got away with it'."
Oh, I fear it's inevitable. Certain 'communities' seem to be already actively carrying out this policy.
The 'terrier' was a Staffordshire bull terrier. Tyson was injured.
ReplyDeleteTyson was a good boy. People who have fallen for the name would be suprised. He was popular in cafes in Hampstead. He was not popular among local hoodlums.
Tyson was a snappy dresser. You can see in the photo of when he was stabbed that he had been wearing his Union Jack.
Its interesting the amount of people who are of the opinion that if your dog has a fight, its OK to kill the other dog and stab a woman.