You gotta love our judges

ResearchWill

KKkitty wrote: »

She'll do the same again now. If it's in you to do something like that once you'll do it again.

And if she does the same again,she will more than likely face jail time especially if she gets the same judge.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can you point at a case with similar facts, with a materially different result.

I can and i am sure you can also.

KKkitty

ResearchWill wrote: »

KKkitty wrote: »

The victim will never forget this and will have a scar as a constant reminder to him of what has happened to him. If that's not maimed enough I don't no what is.

I know of a case where a person was scared on their face by a bottle. The guilty person pleaded guilty, on the facts of the case the judge gave the probation of offenders and the CCA upheld that decision. The short report in a papers rarleys reflects what happens in court.

If you feel so strongly, go to your local circuit court, sit in on a sentencing judge, listen to all that is said and see then if you agree or disagree with the sentence passed.

Years back I sat in on a few court cases and by doing so I can't understand why such menial sentences are handed out. A crime is a crime so you should do the time.

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

I can and i am sure you can also.

Please do then, I would like to see such a result and the result of any appeal.

K-9

fran oconnor wrote: »

I wouldn't give a crap if she didn't intend as such, she broke into his house and beat the sh!te out of him, cutting his bollox by doing so. How she's not serving time is a f*cking joke.

She didn't break in, he let her in after he thought she calmed down. Big mistake.

Should have got a harsh sentence to highlight the issue. Some people still believe DV on men isn't as bad!

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

Please do then, I would like to see such a result and the result of any appeal.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0519/1224297286455.html

KKkitty

ResearchWill wrote: »

KKkitty wrote: »

She'll do the same again now. If it's in you to do something like that once you'll do it again.

And if she does the same again,she will more than likely face jail time especially if she gets the same judge.

So if she does it again but gets a different judge she's home and dry.

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0519/1224297286455.html

1 it is not the same offence, it was section 4.
2 there was a protection order in place.
3 he intended to do her severe harm,
4 he left her and did not request medical assistance
5 he had a previous 3 year suspended sentence
6 he got 3 years for a severe beating
7 it is obvious the judge did not accept what the victim said.

My own opinion in that case 3 years was a bit on the light side 5 would have been more correct.

So again I ask to find a similar case.

ResearchWill

KKkitty wrote: »

So if she does it again but gets a different judge she's home and dry.

Can you point out where I said that. I said she would get time especially if she gets the same judge. The reason for that is that he would remember the facts of the case. A different judge would usually only be told that it was a section 3 against a partner.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

1 it is not the same offence, it was section 4.
2 there was a protection order in place.
3 he intended to do her severe harm,
4 he left her and did not request medical assistance
5 he had a previous 3 year suspended sentence
6 he got 3 years for a severe beating
7 it is obvious the judge did not accept what the victim said.

My own opinion in that case 3 years was a bit on the light side 5 would have been more correct.

So again I ask to find a similar case.

And they still love each other. who decides sections?

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

1 it is not the same offence, it was section 4.
2 there was a protection order in place.
3 he intended to do her severe harm,
4 he left her and did not request medical assistance
5 he had a previous 3 year suspended sentence
6 he got 3 years for a severe beating
7 it is obvious the judge did not accept what the victim said.

My own opinion in that case 3 years was a bit on the light side 5 would have been more correct.

So again I ask to find a similar case.

sorry one more point, where they not both assault with intent?

fran oconnor

ResearchWill wrote: »

1 it is not the same offence, it was section 4.
2 there was a protection order in place.
3 he intended to do her severe harm,
4 he left her and did not request medical assistance
5 he had a previous 3 year suspended sentence
6 he got 3 years for a severe beating
7 it is obvious the judge did not accept what the victim said.

My own opinion in that case 3 years was a bit on the light side 5 would have been more correct.

So again I ask to find a similar case.

Ok Judge Judy, we get your point, we also see that its people like you that have the system so f*cked.

billybudd

fran oconnor wrote: »

Ok Judge Judy, we get your point, we also see that its people like you that have the system so f*cked.

In Fairness there was a case not long ago about a man who assaulted his gf by throwing her on a bed injuring her spine and sitting his testicles on her face with force and he only got fined, inconsistency is a problem it seems.

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

And they still love each other. who decides sections?

One of the caveats I said in an earlier quote was that the court must be satisfied the victim is speaking up for the guilty party without any fear or because of a disfunctional relationship. In the case we are talking about there seems to be no evidence of previous incidents. In the case you quoted it seems to be a dysfunctional relationship marked by continued violence.

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

sorry one more point, where they not both assault with intent?

He beat her to a pulp breaking her jaw in four places. In this case the main injury was caused by her belt buckle, I can not see how they are the same. In the OP case the charge was section 3 in your case it was section 4. In the op case given 18 months suspended, in your case given 3 years out in 2.

ResearchWill

fran oconnor wrote: »

Ok Judge Judy, we get your point, we also see that its people like you that have the system so f*cked.

Please do not insult me if you have an issue with anything I post please argue against it.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

One of the caveats I said in an earlier quote was that the court must be satisfied the victim is speaking up for the guilty party without any fear or because of a disfunctional relationship. In the case we are talking about there seems to be no evidence of previous incidents. In the case you quoted it seems to be a dysfunctional relationship marked by continued violence.

Thank you, but who decided sections?

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

He beat her to a pulp breaking her jaw in four places. In this case the main injury was caused by her belt buckle, I can not see how they are the same. In the OP case the charge was section 3 in your case it was section 4. In the op case given 18 months suspended, in your case given 3 years out in 2.

Yes i understand that but are they both not assault with intent?

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

Thank you, but who decided sections?

Section 3 is assault causing harm, can be anything from a light bruise to a broken bone.
Section 4 is assault causing serious harm, the example of having a metal plate in your jaw would be such.

The court would have the benefit of a medical report, with the opinion of a doctor.

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

Yes i understand that but are they both not assault with intent?

Yes but we have 3 types of assault,

Section 2 there is no harm, always tried in district court 6 months max
Section 3 assault Causing harm max 5 years
Section 4 causing serious harm max life

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes but we have 3 types of assault,

Section 2 there is no harm, always tried in district court 6 months max
Section 3 assault Causing harm max 5 years
Section 4 causing serious harm max life

Thanks.

So say i assaulted my gf but i was clever and did so there was limited damaged just some bruising etc then i would get off? granted if i was controling and had her eating from the palm of my hand?

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

Thanks.

So say i assaulted my gf but i was clever and did so there was limited damaged just some bruising etc then i would get off? granted if i was controling and had her eating from the palm of my hand?

That sounds like a section 3, if the court was satisfied it was a regular thing and it was an abusive relationship, then more than likely some jail time or the court may adjourn sentencing for say a year or 2 to hold the matter over the persons head.

If on the other hand the court is satisfied it was a one off, no previous they may well suspend sentence.

billybudd

Its really strange considering people get jail time for non payment of fines, thank you you have been very helpful, whats your opinion on this case, do you agree with the outcome?

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

Its really strange considering people get jail time for non payment of fines, thank you you have been very helpful, whats your opinion on this case, do you agree with the outcome?

The new fines Act will deal with the issue of jail for non payment of fines. But in reality most such case are released within hours. The new Act requires that a judge looks at the ability to pay any fine and allows for installments and the taking of goods before a last resort of jail.

You are the first to ask my own opinion of the case. I have had cause to visit a number of prisons in this country, it really is a horrible place. 12 months inside one must be hell. Without being in court to hear and see everything and based only on the news report I believe it was a fair sentence. This women has lost her job, lost the respect of her friends and family, and has hanging over her a suspended sentence for 12 months, if she gets in to trouble then it's 18 months inside for her.

Also I have learned that it is within each of us to do terrible things, caused by our own stupidity, say driving a car knowing your front tyre is bald and killing someone. Or knowing certain drink causes you to blackout and drinking it and doing someone harm. Driven by insane jealously to cause a person serious distress, by harressing them. So I accept that people mess up and if we as a society really believe they will not do it again maybe it's the right thing to give them another chance.

John Doe1

aristotle-"bitches be crazy"

Thanks Whore

John Doe1 wrote: »

aristotle-"bitches be crazy"

Quote thread's that way, man.

Keith in cork

I love our legal system.

My best friend was murdered last night. one of the attackers, a serious repeat offender for violent crimes was sentenced to 6mnths only last week. How the f does that happen.

targeting

Keith in cork wrote: »

I love our legal system.

My best friend was murdered last night. one of the attackers, a serious repeat offender for violent crimes was sentenced to 6mnths only last week. How the f does that happen.

I'm sorry for that.

biko

dotsman wrote: »

she cuts his balls open; as per typical domestic abuse victim

MrStuffins wrote: »

Imagine this was a man smashing a woman's door in, attacking her and leaving her genetals mutilated.

He wouldn't only be gettin a suspended sentence!

Did anyone pay attention to the part where the injury was not intentional?

the court accepted that the injury to his scrotum was caused by Moran’s belt buckle.

Thanks Whore

biko wrote: »

Did anyone pay attention to the part where the injury was not intentional?

If I'm doing 60km/h in a 50km/h zone and get pulled over I'll be given penalty points and maybe a fine (Not entirely sure how it works). If I'm doing 60km/h in a 50km/h and run over a child I'll probably get done for manslaughter.

Crimes are not weighed up by their intentions, but by their outcomes.

Logical Fallacy

biko wrote: »

Did anyone pay attention to the part where the injury was not intentional?

Yes, there was discussion about it and the legal implications of unintentional injury caused during an assault in the thread.

ResearchWill

Thanks Whore wrote: »

If I'm doing 60km/h in a 50km/h zone and get pulled over I'll be given penalty points and maybe a fine (Not entirely sure how it works). If I'm doing 60km/h in a 50km/h and run over a child I'll probably get done for manslaughter.

Crimes are not weighed up by their intentions, but by their outcomes.

The charge would more than likely be causing death by dangerous driving. The penalty for the case you give above would more than likely be a long ban and a suspended sentence, it could be custodial if say there was drink, drugs or serious speed involved. Manslaughter on the other hand usually carries average sentence of 4 years.

In any case the issue in this case was the accused did not use the fact of the unintentional injury as a defence, she used it to argue that a custodial sentence would not be correct.

If some one gives a person a slight push in a fight and the victim suffers a severe head injury, should that person get the same sentence as a person who breaks into an old lady's home and attacks her with a baseball bat causing the same injury. Both are guilty but sentence must be different.

biko

Thanks Whore wrote: »

Crimes are not weighed up by their intentions, but by their outcomes.

But they are, even though that is a catchy phrase you have there.
For instance the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent.

There is a fight in the street and Person A (in defence) boxes Person B in the stomach.
Person B then walks home but collapses from a ruptured spleen and dies.
Person A could get off altogether because there was no intent.

The man accidentally ripped his nuts on her belt buckle and everyone is acting like she intended to castrate him. Sure it makes a better AH story...

Batsy

dotsman wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-lacerated-boyfriends-groin-528331.html



tldr: Evil bitch tries to kick in boyfriends door; then attacks him; he doesn't fight back; she cuts his balls open; as per typical domestic abuse victim, he doesn't want her punished; judge lets her off.

P.S. Also, where are all the domestic abuse campaigners now?

She should have been locked up. She's obviously a dangerous and violent individual who should be behind bars so that she cannot hurt anybody else.

Batsy

mackg wrote: »

. What would she have to have done to warrant a proper sentence?

She would have got a proper sentence if she was a man attacking a woman.

The courts don't care, though, when it's the other way around even though both occurrences are as bad as each other.

languagenerd

biko wrote: »

Did anyone pay attention to the part where the injury was not intentional?

The belt-buckle injury was unintentional, yeah, but she was beating him up at the time! It's not that she happened to brush against him and the belt buckle hit him awkwardly. You can't start hitting someone without intent to injure them, can you??

dotsman

ResearchWill wrote: »

Did the article not say "Defence counsel Cormac Quinn BL, told Judge Nolan that his client had “no intention to cause serious injury” to Mr Desmond and said the court accepted that the injury to his scrotum was caused by Moran’s belt buckle." She did not cut his ""balls open" as you put it it seems from the article that the balls injury was not intentional.

biko wrote: »

Did anyone pay attention to the part where the injury was not intentional?

As has been already discussed, she violently assaulted the victim. She is entirely responsible for the outcome of that attack.

If I beat the crap out of 2 people, regardless of whether or not one walks away with just bruises and cuts and the other dies, my intent and actions are the same and I am fully responsible for whatever injuries they sustain.

With regards the "belt buckle" If I kick a person in the head and they die or suffer permanent brain injuries, are you honestly saying that I could defend my actions by claiming that it was my boot that caused the injuries and not my physical body?

ResearchWill wrote: »

And finally the victim it seems did not want her jailed, I think his views are more important than outraged Ireland.

And once again, we have the legal system contributing to the horrors of domestic violence. Is it not common for victims of domestic violence to not want to press charges or to forgive the perpetrators etc? Do we not already have a huge problem with under-reporting of domestic violence and even moreso for male victims? Do the courts not have an obligation to protect both victims and to the public at large?

If I was a victim of domestic violence, whatever thoughts I may have been harbouring about reporting my abuse to the guards would likely evaporate upon reading this article.

ResearchWill

languagenerd wrote: »

The belt-buckle injury was unintentional, yeah, but she was beating him up at the time! It's not that she happened to brush against him and the belt buckle hit him awkwardly. You can't start hitting someone without intent to injure them, can you??

Again the main issue being missed, she did not use the fact that the injury was caused unintentionally as a defence. She admitted the offence, then the court must consider the facts surrounding the event. The court first has to look at the maximum sentence in this case 5 years, then for a guilty plea a discount is given usually 20% if you look at the most serious section 3 with guilty plea the sentence is usually 4 years. Then the court looks at previous convictions and any problems since arrest. Then the court in these cases will listen to the victim and if any compensation was offered. The fact that the injury was unintentional must also be looked at.

After considering all of the above the court gives a sentence in this case 18 months suspended for 12 months. The court must punish a person more, who intended to slice a person open with say a knife than for example a person who unintentionally caused a injury.

ResearchWill

dotsman wrote: »

As has been already discussed, she violently assaulted the victim. She is entirely responsible for the outcome of that attack.

If I beat the crap out of 2 people, regardless of whether or not one walks away with just bruises and cuts and the other dies, my intent and actions are the same and I am fully responsible for whatever injuries they sustain.

With regards the "belt buckle" If I kick a person in the head and they die or suffer permanent brain injuries, are you honestly saying that I could defend my actions by claiming that it was my boot that caused the injuries and not my physical body?


And once again, we have the legal system contributing to the horrors of domestic violence. Is it not common for victims of domestic violence to not want to press charges or to forgive the perpetrators etc? Do we not already have a huge problem with under-reporting of domestic violence and even moreso for male victims? Do the courts not have an obligation to protect both victims and to the public at large?

If I was a victim of domestic violence, whatever thoughts I may have been harbouring about reporting my abuse to the guards would likely evaporate upon reading this article.

Again where have I said she denied responsibility. She pleaded guilty to the offence. The Judge must then look at the maximum sentence in this case 5 years. Then it takes all the other issues into account and passes a sentence. Should a person with many previous who attacks a old lady with a baseball bat be treated at sentencing the same as a person who after hitting a person cause them a bruise. They are both the same offence but each case must be treated on its own facts. Again to make it clear I have not said she had a defence just that the unintentional injury must be treated differently to a intentional injury at sentencing.

In your example of attacking 2 people if one does die that is murder a mandatory life sentence the other if he is not seriously injured then it is section 3 maximum sentence 5 years.

You also ignore that the victim requested that no custodial sentence be imposed. If on the other hand did request that time be served the court may very well have done so.

dotsman

ResearchWill wrote: »

Again where have I said she denied responsibility.

Because she is claiming that the injuries were an accident when they are clearly a direct result of her intended actions (ie to violently assault the victim) and, thus, somehow downplay what she is admitting responsibility for - it wasn't me, it was my belt-buckle???

ResearchWill wrote: »

She pleaded guilty to the offence. The Judge must then look at the maximum sentence in this case 5 years. Then it takes all the other issues into account and passes a sentence.

This was an horrific, sustained, one-sided, unprovoked violent attack, that resulted in serious injury.

Do you honestly believe that the attacker should go unpunished?

ResearchWill wrote: »

Should a person with many previous who attacks a old lady with a baseball bat be treated at sentencing the same as a person who after hitting a person cause them a bruise. They are both the same offence but each case must be treated on its own facts.

When you say both are the same offence, I am assuming your example regarding the bruise was also caused by being attacked with a baseball bat.

If so, then in both cases there should be a custodial sentence (assuming there are no negating factors such as the victim having initiated the assault etc). For the repeat offender (if the prior convictions were also for violent crimes), then they should throw away the key, but that does not mean that the first offender should be let away with it.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Again to make it clear I have not said she had a defence just that the unintentional injury must be treated differently to a intentional injury at sentencing.

But this seems to be the crux of the matter. And you very much seem to think like so many in our legal system. I strongly believe in personal responsibility. When you assault someone, the intent is to cause injury.

ResearchWill wrote: »

In your example of attacking 2 people if one does die that is murder a mandatory life sentence the other if he is not seriously injured then it is section 3 maximum sentence 5 years.

Actually, if you look at many recent cases, you will see that "manslaughter" is the preferred defence (and all to well accepted).

ResearchWill wrote: »

You also ignore that the victim requested that no custodial sentence be imposed. If on the other hand did request that time be served the court may very well have done so.

I'm afraid I didn't ignore that as you can see in my previous post...

dotsman wrote: »

And once again, we have the legal system contributing to the horrors of domestic violence. Is it not common for victims of domestic violence to not want to press charges or to forgive the perpetrators etc? Do we not already have a huge problem with under-reporting of domestic violence and even moreso for male victims? Do the courts not have an obligation to protect both victims and to the public at large?

If I was a victim of domestic violence, whatever thoughts I may have been harbouring about reporting my abuse to the guards would likely evaporate upon reading this article.

ResearchWill

dotsman wrote: »

Because she is claiming that the injuries were an accident when they are clearly a direct result of her intended actions (ie to violently assault the victim) and, thus, somehow downplay what she is admitting responsibility for - it wasn't me, it was my belt-buckle???


This was an horrific, sustained, one-sided, unprovoked violent attack, that resulted in serious injury.

Do you honestly believe that the attacker should go unpunished?


When you say both are the same offence, I am assuming your example regarding the bruise was also caused by being attacked with a baseball bat.

If so, then in both cases there should be a custodial sentence (assuming there are no negating factors such as the victim having initiated the assault etc). For the repeat offender (if the prior convictions were also for violent crimes), then they should throw away the key, but that does not mean that the first offender should be let away with it.



But this seems to be the crux of the matter. And you very much seem to think like so many in our legal system. I strongly believe in personal responsibility. When you assault someone, the intent is to cause injury.


Actually, if you look at many recent cases, you will see that "manslaughter" is the preferred defence (and all to well accepted).


I'm afraid I didn't ignore that as you can see in my previous post...

1 you ignore she accept responsibility she pleaded guilty, then after pleading guilty she request when the court sought to impose sentence the court would treat her case differently to case where for example the guilty party took a knife to a scrotum.

Manslaughter is usually only a defence if you can persuade the jury that you did not intend serious harm or to kill.

In my example hitting a person on the arm with a closed fist causing a bruise is section 3 hitting a person with a baseball bat and not causing serious injury is a section 3. As in a previous post I pointed out the 3 levels of assault section 2 is assault there is no need for any harm in fact you do not even have to touch. Section 3 is assault causing harm and section 4 is causing serious harm.

I do not ignore you in relation to abuse in the home. In this case there was no evidence of previous abuse from the guilty party. There was no evidence that the victim was doing anything under duress. Unlike usual partner violence it seems but I can not be sure the parties have broken up.

If you go back in the post you will see a person posted a link to an article about a violent relationship where the guilty party bludgeoned his partner in bed the judge commented on the amount of blood, the partner spoke up for the guilty person but the judge still imposed a 4 year sentence.

There is no evidence in the present case that the guilty person ever did anything like it before. She pleaded guilty she accepted she did wrong, she asked not to get away with it but for the compassion of the court in her circumstances. To err is human to forgive Devine is so true, there seems to be little compassion for people who do make a huge blunder but then show genuine remorse.

dotsman

ResearchWill wrote: »

1 you ignore she accept responsibility she pleaded guilty, then after pleading guilty she request when the court sought to impose sentence the court would treat her case differently to case where for example the guilty party took a knife to a scrotum.

Manslaughter is usually only a defence if you can persuade the jury that you did not intend serious harm or to kill.

In my example hitting a person on the arm with a closed fist causing a bruise is section 3 hitting a person with a baseball bat and not causing serious injury is a section 3. As in a previous post I pointed out the 3 levels of assault section 2 is assault there is no need for any harm in fact you do not even have to touch. Section 3 is assault causing harm and section 4 is causing serious harm.

I do not ignore you in relation to abuse in the home. In this case there was no evidence of previous abuse from the guilty party. There was no evidence that the victim was doing anything under duress. Unlike usual partner violence it seems but I can not be sure the parties have broken up.

If you go back in the post you will see a person posted a link to an article about a violent relationship where the guilty party bludgeoned his partner in bed the judge commented on the amount of blood, the partner spoke up for the guilty person but the judge still imposed a 4 year sentence.

There is no evidence in the present case that the guilty person ever did anything like it before. She pleaded guilty she accepted she did wrong, she asked not to get away with it but for the compassion of the court in her circumstances. To err is human to forgive Devine is so true, there seems to be little compassion for people who do make a huge blunder but then show genuine remorse.

I think we are going around in circles here. I don't think I will ever understand your reasoning with regards this case. To me, I believe this was a serious crime, one warranting a harsh punishment, not just because she fully deserves it, but also as a message to all other violent criminals.

You also seem to be confusing your arguments by quoting various sections of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act and claiming that just because there is no evidence that she planned to cut open his scrotum or because she didn't use a knife or because there is no mention of a previous conviction, that the Judge is somehow supposed to let her off - yet nowhere in the act does it even suggest that this should be the case:

Section 3 of the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997 wrote:

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

Section 4 of the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997 wrote:

4.—(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.

where "harm" and "serious harm" is defnied by the Act as:

Section 1 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 wrote:

• “harm” means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness;
• “serious harm” means injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ;

To me, it could very well be argued that the injuries sustained would fall under Section 4.

Regardless of which section you believe it falls under, on a scale of 0 to 60 months or 0 months to life, you believe she deserves 0. Not even a fine. Not even the walk of shame out the front door of the courts, but to be discreetly left out a restricted side-door (because she is a work colleague).

ResearchWill

dotsman wrote: »

I think we are going around in circles here. I don't think I will ever understand your reasoning with regards this case. To me, I believe this was a serious crime, one warranting a harsh punishment, not just because she fully deserves it, but also as a message to all other violent criminals.

You also seem to be confusing your arguments by quoting various sections of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act and claiming that just because there is no evidence that she planned to cut open his scrotum or because she didn't use a knife or because there is no mention of a previous conviction, that the Judge is somehow supposed to let her off - yet nowhere in the act does it even suggest that this should be the case:





where "harm" and "serious harm" is defnied by the Act as:
.

Regardless of which section you believe it falls under, on a scale of 0 to 60 months or 0 months to life, you believe she deserves 0. Not even a fine. Not even the walk of shame out the front door of the courts, but to be discreetly left out a restricted side-door (because she is a work colleague).

It could be argued that the injuries fall under section 4, but this thread is about a judge sentencing under section 3. But either the medical evidence did not support section 4 or the DPP decided to accept a plea to section 3 rather than run a trial. This issue is about what did in fact happen not what may have happened. A judge cannot sentence a person for say murder if he was only charged with shoplifting.

The judge has to follow guidelines set by the CCA in sentencing. The issues I have set out must all be taken into account. And in this case lead to that sentence.

The max the judge could impose in this case was 5 years he must give discount for guilty plea, he must take into account previous, he must take into account is this person going to reoffend, he must take into account the guilty persons remorse, he must take into account victims views.

And yes it is true she will spend no time in jail she received a 18 month sentence, which is suspended but does hang over her.

Do I agree with o jail time? Yes I do, on all the facts I think it was fair. In fact on a case in the CCA a guy who bottled another guy causing serious scar on face with 12 stitches, got probation of offenders act, no jail no suspension, in effect pleaded guilty but conviction not recorded.in all the circumstances it was a fair sentence.

A judge can not just look at the injury, he must look at everything.

Thanks Whore

biko wrote: »

For instance the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent.

There is a fight in the street and Person A (in defence) boxes Person B in the stomach.
Person B then walks home but collapses from a ruptured spleen and dies.
Person A could get off altogether because there was no intent.

Touché. I'll take that one.

biko wrote: »

But they are, even though that is a catchy phrase you have there.

I thought so too. At least until I used the word manslaughter in my example. Kind of underscored an immediate flaw in the point.