Her lawyer Peter Casson said in mitigation: “Prior to this incident, there was nothing this defendant had against the complainant. In fact they were friends or associates. But she has been in a number of domestic and abusive relationships over the last couple of years and this incident was orchestrated by her partner as he told her the complainant had been flirting with him.
"They had been out and she has approached her and words were exchanged. Prior to this incident there was nothing. The partner was with the defendant at the time and he said she had been flirting with him.
Mr Casson added: “She has had a very difficult childhood. She found herself meeting boyfriend after boyfriend and she always ends up the victim as a result of controlling and coercive behaviour.”
It's funny how something like this repeatedly happens to certain people over and over again, isn't it?
Gregory admitted assault, was given eight weeks imprisonment suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay the mum-of-two £250 compensation.
I guess Peter could have saved his breath - wasn't this always likely?
JP Walter Barrett told her: “We have seen the picture of the injuries as a result of this assault. It is a really serious assault and it warrants a prison sentence but we feel this can be suspended today.”
Why? Does she have a squeaky clean record apart from this incident?
Gregory had previous convictions for malicious communications, breach of restraining order and harassment of another person.
Guess not. She simply doesn't learn. And she's not the only one...
2 comments:
"She simply doesn't learn. And she's not the only one"
Indeed !
It appears to be a growing trend amongst some members of the judiciary
They never will learn, while there's no consequences for them...
Post a Comment