At the age of 12, Lewis Graham entered a woman’s house in Westcliff and threw paint over her carpet, causing £400 worth of damage, and spelt out his first name with the paint.
He left the paint pot he used in the woman’s kitchen. However, police did not pick up Graham until this year - a full decade after he caused the damage.Well, those wheels of justice might grind slowly, but they do grind after all...
Graham, now 22, was asked by police to come in for a voluntary interview earlier this year, which he accepted, and during the interview admitted to causing the damage.
Police issued him with a caution and instructed him to go on a victim awareness course and pay £80 in costs.Paltry. But this little swine thought even that was too harsh!
However, yesterday, Southend Magistrates’ Court heard Graham believed this to be “stupid”, because the offence was so long ago, and chose not to attend the course, resulting in police then officially charging him with criminal damage to property valued under £5,000.Heh!
Penny Simons, mitigating, said: “The defendant told police that he did carry out this damage when he was 12, he could just about remember it. He said it was a stupid, idiotic and childish thing to do.
“But he thought the whole thing was stupid and made the decision not to do the course, as this had been left and left for so many years.”
Ms Simons argued that Graham should have a complete discharge of the crime due to the amount of time it has taken to reach court.Surely that won't...?
Oh.
The magistrates bench chose to give Graham a conditional discharge for six months, meaning if he commits a crime during that time he will be punished for that and the carpet damage.
This means he received a lesser sentence than he originally got from the police.*sighs*
8 comments:
When I see cases like this sometimes I feel that the word 'contempt' is too weak a word to describe it. I find it astonishing that the police could leave a case of criminal damage for a decade and the judiciary dish out a 'punishment' that is somewhat derisory. Maybe if he'd written the word 'poltroon' on the carpet of a Muslim activist's house he'd be looking at a much harsher sentence.
This piece of scum is unlikely to find employment other than as an Essex constable.
Do you really think the police sat on this for ten years? You are all policing experts,so why would they do that?
Here's my unqualified take on this. He left his 12 year old fingerprints on the paint tin. They were put into the police database. He then got arrested ten years later and had his prints done for the first time and they were a match for an old case.
But what do I know?
Jaded
"But what do I know?"
Substandard English compilation, spelling and punctuation are reliable indicators of ignorance. Such originators bolster themselves through spurious claims which are usually focused on insulting other contributors. Alternatively, the know-nothing will seek to compensate with unconnected and false claims to 'midal' class and 'educatid' credentials.
I know you are a pompous cock Melvin. Who's only skill is sneering and avoiding questions as to his credentials.
Jaded
But what do I know?
Perhaps you are at least acquainted with a mathematical algorithm for your particular style of writing, Jaded. A talent for omitting words and sloppy sentence structure, misspelling and missing punctuation are all crafted without any hint of a formal education. And who could overlook the entertainment value evident in your choices of their and there and who's and whose?
Once again Melvin you prove my point.
Jaded
"Maybe if he'd written the word 'poltroon' on the carpet of a Muslim activist's house he'd be looking at a much harsher sentence."
Undoubtedly!
"Do you really think the police sat on this for ten years?"
If you define 'sat on' as 'waiting until he came to light for something else' then, yes, that's exactly what they did. There's no evidence he was hiding, after all. They clearly weren't looking.
Post a Comment