Judge Rebecca Poulet QC jailed Hand for life with a minimum term of 30 years. She told him: “Both of your victims were known to you but your terrible actions remain motiveless and unexplained.
“This court knows nothing of what triggered your conduct save only that you have been addicted to heroin for the last 11 years.”
Like that's not a cause...
“This terrible offence took place just one month after you had been released on bail as you awaited trial in respect of a brutal attack on Graeme Bennett, a man who had been your good friend after 24 years.”
She sentenced Hand to a further 22 years for attempted murder and one year for having an axe, all to run concurrently with the life term.
Why? Did she not have the option of ordering them to run consecutively?
Or is this just another example of the excessive leniency shown to recidivist criminals all day and every day?
Mr Bennett, 43, who had invited Hand to help him hang some pictures, was struck twice to the head, fracturing his skull, and once on the left wrist.
Mr Cray said: “This was a vicious attack by the defendant that Mr Bennett was lucky to have survived.” Despite incriminating forensic evidence, the defendant again denied being responsible.
Hand was arrested and charged on January 30 and remanded into custody. But he was released on bail after a hearing at the Old Bailey on July 22 2020.
I note they haven't given us the name of the judge who let him go free...
Or the name of the solicitor/barrister who assured the judge that his client posed no threat. In cases like this, the brief should also be punished.
When offences are not concurrent, neither should the sentences be - that should be simple enough for even the densest judge to understand.
"Or the name of the solicitor/barrister who assured the judge that his client posed no threat. "
"When offences are not concurrent, neither should the sentences be..."
That's a very good point. But it's long since the punishment was designed to fit the crime, isn't it?
Post a Comment