Student protester jailed

wildman said:
it only 'appears' to be heavy handed because some of the more hardcore crimes like rapists, paedophiles, killers, assault with deadly weapons etc, seem to get such lenient terms compared to this.
Click to expand...
Not at all, it's fairly heavy handed in its own right.

wildman said:
You don't get sentenced for nearly doing something. You get sentenced based on fact and evidence. He in this case I believe was handed his sentence based on 2 things

1. His intent to do someone harm, injury or bodily harm via the action of throwing said extinguisher from the top of the building, this is very different from saying he attempted to murder someone. I don't think he was attempting murder. I do however think he was intending to cause someone harm / bodily injury. This I think is a fact and could be extrapolated and diagnosed using the available footage of the day.

2. Judge probably thought it was a good opportunity to make an example of this idiot so that other rioting students will think properly about turning up in London and smashing the place up as now they know if they are slightly over zealous they have a good chance of doing time at her majesties pleasure. This is not really justification, but does fulfil the part of sentencing acting as a formidable deterrent for others.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
scorza said:
It's not attempted murder it's violent disorder. At least that's he's been sentenced for.



It's violent disorder, same as smashing up a restaurant.
Click to expand...

It would depend scorza.

A single person acting alone cannot be convicted of violent disorder as it takes a minimum of three persons to be involved although they do not have to act simultaneously.

Interesting that some people think he will get a hard time inside. When asked what he is in for and he says throwing a fire extinguisher off a roof at cops then I can't see him being bothered that much.

The fella got more than I thought he would but I can't really find pity. Such mindless thuggery has no place in a civilised society and in peaceful protest.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
It would depend scorza.

A single person acting alone cannot be convicted of violent disorder as it takes a minimum of three persons to be involved although they do not have to act simultaneously.
Click to expand...

AFAIK they don't have to charge all of them nor do all of them have to act violently, is that right? Can't remember!

On a related note, the maximum punishment for rioting is, on face value, insanely high.
 
dekez said:
How old do you have to be before you go to prison? He was 18.

I don't think it's that harsh of a sentance, just that other sentances should be tougher than they are.
Click to expand...

20.

YOI's are a little more about rehabilitation and giving the offender a basis for not reoffending with better provision for education etc than a prison which main objective is to punish (despite argument to the contrary).


http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/youngoffenders/
 
to those saying it was harsh look at the sentencing guide. According to this he could have got a straight 10 months simply for just taking part, so if you add on intent to harm, violent disorder I think 3 years is apt.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/violent_disorder/

Quoted from the link above

IT IS NOT ONLY THE PRECISE NATUTE OF THE INDIVIDUAL ACTS BUT ALSO THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE TAKEN PART.
 
We love maverick judges Tefal.

Slightly o/t but at a possession with intent trial I gave evidence at years back, I was then trained to field test heroin and the defence wanted a step by step demonstration of how it was done, which included using digital scales.

I removed a plug and plugged in the scales to a very muffled and quieter court room and was at a loss why.

Judge. ' I think you have disconnected the court PA system officer. '

/ facepalm /
 
Nitefly said:
AFAIK they don't have to charge all of them nor do all of them have to act violently, is that right? Can't remember!

On a related note, the maximum punishment for rioting is, on face value, insanely high.
Click to expand...

Not all have to be charged, no although an element of violence or threatening violence must be proven.

Sec 2 said:
1) Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder.

2) It is immaterial whether or not the 3 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

3) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

4) Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as in public places.
Click to expand...

As for insanely high, some would agree and some wouldn't.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Not all have to be charged, no.

As for insanely high, some would agree and some wouldn't.
Click to expand...

When I said insanely high, I meant for the offence of riot - it's something like 12 years IIRC, which is pretty steep considering it's almost identical to violent disorder, the only real difference being that there are 12 or more people there.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Ah, sorry. My bad.

Maximum of 10 years I think and 12 persons minimum required for the offence.
Click to expand...

Correct its 10 years

Under UK law, a riot is defined by the 1986 Public Order Act as 12 or more persons who "together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety". This carries the possibility of a fine and a sentence of up to ten years' imprisonment.
If there are fewer than twelve people present, violence may constitute the lesser offence of Violent Disorder. This is defined the same way as for a riot, but for 3 or more persons

so technically any students getting busted should be charged with rioting rather than violent disorder as there was certainly more than 12 people smashing that building up.
 
simulatorman said:
Serves him right, the idiot could have killed someone.
Click to expand...
So can someone breaking the speed limit.

I see this is worse, 120 mph on an empty motorway isn't as dangerous as dumping a fire ext. from the 17th floor as a crowd of 100 stands below, BUT, nothing happened.
Punish mistakes that DO cost lives more. The guy did something stupid, and will now lose 3 years of his life for a bit of dumb behavior, although it's VERY stupid what he did, 3 years is quite harsh.
I agree with some, 12 month would have been enough, a year wasted and a criminal record is a major life changing punishment.

Although nothing justifies all the destruction and the possible violence, the students in the UK do have it quite bad, am I correct you can't really pay for uni without taking out a student loan ?

They should have caught more people on ''voilent disorder'', rather than setting examples.
 
wildman said:
so technically any students getting busted should be charged with rioting rather than violent disorder as there was certainly more than 12 people smashing that building up.
Click to expand...

I assume then that you think someone who steals a banana from a supermarket deserves 7 years in jail.

A charge of riot would be used for something extraordinarily violent and it wouldn't be appropriate in the given case to make such a charge.
 
The violence need not be extraordinary for a charge of riot.

It is more a case of numbers.

Affray is 1-2 persons, Violent Disorder 3-11 and Riot 12 and above.

The charging standards are quite similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom