Monday 8 August 2022

The CPS Miss Another Open Goal...

The judge said his sentencing powers had been 'significantly curtailed by the decision to accept a guilty plea to a considerably less serious' charge than what he had originally faced.
The judge said he had 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' that Djabouri would have been facing a longer sentence if he had greater sentencing powers and that Djabouri had played 'a leading role in group activity'.

Three years and seven months in a young offenders institution - which was what he was sentenced to, remember, not what he'll actually serve - is really no justice for beating a man around the head with a brick simply because he was Jewish, one might think... 

Djabouri, of Ilford, east London, admitted at an earlier hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court to grievous bodily harm without intent. This was an alternative to the more serious charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

How can you beat a man around the head with a brick and not intend to cause GBH? The judge was clearly as frustrated: 

'Attacks on members of the Jewish community in this country are becoming increasingly and worryingly commonplace,' the judge said, adding that 'unlike members of some other communities they're easily identifiable by their clothing and appearance'.

They aren't the only ones, though. 

Mohammed Bashir, mitigating, said it was a 'despicable offence' and Djabouri 'shows a genuine level of remorse'.

No he doesn't. If he did, he'd have named his companion who'd be sharing the dock with him...

The bearded defendant, who wore a grey tracksuit and had his dark hair in a ponytail, tried to catch the attention of his barrister from the secure dock after the judge read out his sentence. Djabouri asked a question, and Mr Bashir told him: 'I'll tell you downstairs.'

What does the CPS have to say for themselves for yet another failure to do their job properly? 

A CPS spokesperson said: 'Our decision-making in this case, which took into account the views of the victim and the police, was based on an assessment of whether we had a realistic prospect of conviction in accordance with our legal test.
'The CPS takes antisemitism extremely seriously (Ed: *hollow laughter*) because of the devasting impact it has on victims and wider society.
'Where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest, we will prosecute these cases.'

No, you'll just look for the fruit that's not even low-hanging, but has already fallen off the tree... 


Anonymous said...

The CPS has, or used to have, targets for successful prosecutions and also targets to remain within budgets. This can often lead to them accepting a guilty plea to a lower offence. At the end, the CPS are happy because they did both; the (usually legal aid funded) defence brief is happy because they did what they were supposed to do, and got their client a reduced sentence; the offender is happy because they more or less got away with their crime. The only person not happy is the victim, but the victim's opinions and feelings don't seem to count for much. In over 20 years as a front line Police officer, I have seen this time and time again.
It's a shame we can't dig up Vlad the Impaler and clone him into our next Home Secretary.

Anonymous said...

So 'religiously aggravated' works one way...

Looks to me that there was a shortage of foreskins in that courtroom!

Fahrenheit211 said...

I detect the distinct whiff of double standards here. This is a woefully short sentence for someone who decided to pick up a brick and use it to seriously assault a man on the grounds that he is Jewish. Imagine for a moment that this was instead of an attack on a Rabbi, but a similar attack of similar ferocity and motivation on an Imam. Does anyone seriously believe that the offender would have been given a three and a bit year sentence and have the CPS accept a guilty plea for a much lesser offence? Of course it would not. In that case the offender would be looking at a much longer sentence and for a much more serious offence.

Ilford used to be a great place to be Jewish, it was where people moved to when they had earned enough money and respect to get out of the ghettos of the East End. The Jewish community in Ilford and more widely across the London Borough of Redbridge used to be thriving and contributed greatly to the wider community via business, social involvement and who played their part in local politics. There used to be synagogues and groups for every type of Jew from strictly Orthodox right through to those who were so secular that their only concession to Jewish religious observance was to not eat a bacon sandwich on Yom Kippur.

Now however it's a different situation. The area is now thoroughly Islamised and with this Islamisation has come the Labour Party who ousted the Tories from local government, probably never to return. It's now become a place where Orthodox Jewish women, recognisable because of their modest clothing and the wearing of wigs by married women, fear to go shopping because of the increase in anti Jewish violence a lot of which has been brought into the area with Islam.

JuliaM said...

"It's a shame we can't dig up Vlad the Impaler and clone him into our next Home Secretary."

He'd get my vote!

"Looks to me that there was a shortage of foreskins in that courtroom!"

Quite! And a lack of spine in the CPS.

"I detect the distinct whiff of double standards here."

It's becoming a depressingly familiar scent, isn't it? The poison of identity politics has utterly ruined our once-proud justice system...