Why Do We Value These People Over Our Own?

Jamshid Piruz was told to serve at least five years for the violent attack in Crawley in January last year.

But a Court of Appeal judge has since decided to cut back the minimum term to three years - meaning the “potentially very dangerous” 35-year-old could be back on the streets in less than two and a half years.

Matt Webb, chairman of the Sussex Police Federation, said it was “highly frustrating” a convicted murderer was being treated “so leniently”, adding: “These officers were attacked and assaulted while simply doing their job - investigating crime and seeking to bring criminals to justice.

“I do not believe for one moment that had Piruz attacked a member of the judiciary while they carried out their work that he would be freed in such quick time.

“Policing is a risky business, but being assaulted is not part of the job and will never be part of the job.”

So...why was the sentence reduced?

Piruz, who the court heard witnessed his parents’ murder by the Taliban when he was 11, admitted burglary and two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and affray.

Judge Jeremy Gold, sentencing, branded him a “potentially very dangerous man” who could not control his “acute psychotic episodes” and said he had no reason “whatsoever” to inflict such “truly terrifying violence”.

Handing down the Court of Appeal judgment, Justice Timothy Holroyde noted the officers had been in fear for their lives, had battled disturbed sleep and anxiety ever since and serious injury had been avoided “only” through the actions of the officers. But he noted Piruz’s traumatic childhood.

There you go. He was 'a victim', to the British judiciary, bless their hearts.