Regular offender avoids jail for pushing PC on tube tracks, later assaults another police officer...

Ahhh to ad light to it and probbaly why she didn't get a jail term for it he was off duty and out of uniform.
 
Daaaavvveee said:
Ah yeah, think I miss-read something then. Still she doesn't seem to stable!
Click to expand...


Christ no she's insane and should have got a custodial sent3nce for the bricking the car bins and drugs etc.

But it was just that first case that seemed weird and you can see it from the other aide.

2 drunk women arguing, random bloke turns up shoves one of them in the boobs, gets shoved back.
 
Tefal said:
But it was just that first case that seemed weird and you can see it from the other aide.

2 drunk women arguing, random bloke turns up shoves one of them in the boobs, gets shoved back.
Click to expand...

From viewing the CCTV, he concluded, it was "clear" that Ms Bregazzi "reacted spontaneously" and "did not seem to form a malign intent".

PC Chegwin was "acting in a public-spirited manner in intervening and seeking to prevent the escalation of violence" and did not know that she had "had significant surgery on the part of the body he made contact with", Judge Dein said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43127415

Also:

Recorder Jeremy Dein QC said: ‘He says in his statement he identified himself as a police officer, and that he used a defensive push aimed at your chest in order to maintain a safe gap, and that you came at him aggressively.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/20/trans...to-tube-tracks-four-bottles-prosecco-7327703/
 
"Judge Dein described her record as 'appalling', but said he felt her attack on PC Chegwin was a 'low level' offence that could be dealt with by a suspended sentence.

He said: 'You appear to be in a heated exchange with your friend, ultimately a person involves himself. That person turned out to be an off duty police officer - you didn't know that.

'That person pushed you first. Whether that was necessary or not is in my view open to question./

'Your criminality amounts to you having responded by pushing that person, Mr Chegwin, and he ended up on the railway.

'I'm fully satisfied that you didn't intend to push him onto the railway line.

'It's open to question in my view whether you intended to endanger him at all, but you have pleaded guilty to that offence.'"
Click to expand...



^judges statement.

From the last paragraph sounds like if she hadn't plead guilty she could have gotten off.

Non idea why it' all gone bold :/
 
Moses said:
It’s not really worth locking someone away for vast lengths of time just to save on some policing costs and to prevent minor criminal damage.

10 months for doing various things which didn’t actually do much harm seems quite tough, tbh, even if she may only serve half of that. How much tougher should the sentencing have been? And what benefit would we get vs the cost of doing so?
Click to expand...

Well an actual sentence for pushing someone onto train tracks (which could have electrocuted him) instead of a suspended one for a start. Benefit is a dangerous individual gets locked away. Clearly with 64 previous offences the current system hasn't worked too well... she'd not have had the other two incidents if she was already in jail for nearly killing an off duty cop.
 
Moses said:
So how long for a push where she didn’t actually intend to cause serious harm, and didn’t in reality? Then what’s the cost of that? Then how much harm is prevented. A simple cost/benefit analysis given clearly we can’t cure criminality amongst some people, so in the absence of a fix is that a sensible use of money? Or would it be more sensible to pump it into programmes to try and prevent people going down her path in the future.
Click to expand...

The judge gave her 6 months, suspended. I don't see the point in giving someone with multiple previous offences a suspended sentence. It clearly wasn't a deterrant. I think she should have served those 6 months in the first place.

Likewise the concurrent sentence for criminal damage, she essentially faces no consequences for the additional offences.
 
64 previous convictions... 64 of them. Surely there has to be a point where the law decides that enough is enough, and its time to hand down a more severe sentence because shes just a massive pain in the ****.
 
Seems to me like the transgender card has been played far too many times by this person.

I honestly wonder why people want to force their bodies to be something they aren't, especially when I see such end results as linked by the OP.
 
Moses said:
What benefit would her serving six months have done? Obviously yes, she couldn’t commit a variety of crimes for six months
Click to expand...

Question asked and answered. The police and the courts know full well that often all they can do is put a temporary halt on someone's persistent offending, that doesn't make doing so futile however. There's not much they can do about getting her ongoing care for the apparent psychological issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom