A cocaine dealer who owned three stun guns has been warned by a judge that he is on the cusp of “destroying” the lives of those closest to him.
And all his customers, and the people they steal from to maintain their habit. Did you forget them, judge?
Judge Robert Pawson said the defendant could face years in prison for his crimes but decided to “take a chance” on him and defer sentencing for six months.
He's not taking the chance, of course. Everyone else is.
Mitigating John Dyer said the defendant had “everything in his life going for him” and he had “glowing references”.
The court heard his employers were willing to keep him on if he remained drug free.
The odds of that being astronomical.
A drug dealer who was found in possession of a stun gun and class A drugs has been jailed. There might be nothing unusual in that as a headline. However when he appeared before Bournemouth Crown Court on 25 September 2020, he was handed a deferred sentence. This would mean he would not have to serve any jail time.
At this point the Solicitor General, Rt Hon Michael Ellis QC MP, intervened. The case was referred to the Appeal Court. On 2 December the sentence was found to be unduly lenient and has been increased to 3 years’ imprisonment, minus 37 days Davis spent on qualifying curfew.
/applause
H/T: Peter Wells via email
4 comments:
Stun guns are considered section 5 arms.
Possession of section 5 is a minimum of 5 years.
Many crimes have been given minimum terms to enable wet politicians to look tough: shame they seem to have neglected to tell the judiciary.
The sentence wasn't even to a holiday camp plus plod or the Clown Prosecution Service did nothing about possession of the stun gun.
If it wasn't for the sentence review I'd think that he was let off deliberately.
"Stun guns are considered section 5 arms.
Possession of section 5 is a minimum of 5 years."
At this point, I'm just grateful he's serving any yime at all!
"... shame they seem to have neglected to tell the judiciary."
I wonder if they have bets amongst themselves to see who can be the most lenient with the most undeserving cases? It would explain a few things.
"If it wasn't for the sentence review I'd think that he was let off deliberately."
Me too...
Post a Comment