one victim gets a broken neck, judge gives suspended sentence...(Belvoir Hunt vs Hunt Monitors)

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,107
This seems unbelievable, I'm quite open to the argument that prison isn't necessarily a good solution when it comes to non-violent offences but when it comes to violent ones, especially where one victim has a broken neck I'd rather like to see the people behind the attack get locked up!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...sister-vouches-belvoir-hunt-workers-attacked/

Princess Diana's elder sister vouched for a man who attacked two charity workers monitoring a hunt as a judge decided to spare him a prison sentence.

Lady Sarah McCorquodale told a court that George Grant, who assaulted the men with his son Thomas Grant leaving one victim with a broken neck, would lose his job and home if he were jailed.

McCorquodale, who is joint master of the Belvoir Hunt, told Leicester Crown Court that Grant is "very hardworking, good at his job", and that she had "never seen him lose his temper like that".

Grant and his son were both given 16-month prison sentences, suspended for two years. Judge Jinder Singh Boora told the men: "Both of you flipped. Neither of you are by nature violent men."
Click to expand...

I can see how a court could look leniently upon someone flipping/lashing out in anger and it being out of character... but this seems bizarre - it isn't as though it turned into a fight immediately in the heat of the moment with Mr Grant suddenly punching one of them say and then stopping immediately realising he'd lost his cool... no, one of them went off to "get the boys"! They had "boys" they could already rely on to be called upon for this sort of thing...and who indeed came, with masks, the fact that it is being accepted as him just losing his temper/flipping and totally out of character, in context, seems ludicrous.

Four masked men got out, reports said, and Mr Cunnington - a former police officer - said he was attacked and pushed down a 14ft drop by "at least two" of them.

The court heard Mr Swain was also attacked and pushed down a smaller drop by the Grants and the masked men. They were never identified, and the Grants refused to tell officers who they might be.

Mr Swain, who managed to call emergency services, said they were "lucky not to have been killed". While George Grant did not physically attack Mr Cunnington himself, the court heard that it was a "joint venture" between him and the other men.
Click to expand...

So the victims called the emergency services, not Mr Grant who happened to have heavies on standby and had momentarily flipped... oh and he's decided to conceal the identities of the attackers.

Maybe I'm completely off target here but I'd have otherwise assumed that if this were say, instead of two well connected white people in the countryside with high status character references but instead were perhaps a couple of black guys on a council estate calling in masked heavies on some people they were in dispute with, resulting in a broken neck, then they'd not be getting off so lightly. Perhaps I'm completely wrong and the sentence is standard for this sort of thing. It still seems very off...

In the false rape accusation thread someone highlighted a guy getting a prison sentence for trying to dodge a minor motoring offence, concealing his number plate or something... yet seemingly concealing the identities of masked heavies you called upon to attack two people resulting a broken neck for one of them results in no prison time. (yes I know in the motoring offence was charged with perverting the course of justice etc ..etc.. I'm sure there can be a logical argument made as for why each sentence is correct within the framework of our current legal system I'm just saying that taking a step back it is pretty damn silly).
 
dowie said:
Maybe I'm completely off target here but I'd have otherwise assumed that if this were say, instead of two well connected white people in the countryside with high status character references but instead were perhaps a couple of black guys on a council estate calling in masked heavies on some people they were in dispute with, resulting in a broken neck, then they'd not be getting off so lightly. Perhaps I'm completely wrong and the sentence is standard for this sort of thing. It still seems very off...
Click to expand...
i get what you you're saying but 2 white guys from a council estate are going to prison too for something like this. colour has nothing to do with it.
 
The judge probably - hopefully - knows what he's doing. But then it's the internet and we're all as equally versed in matters of law as those who actually provide judgement on it. Not a dig dowie, btw, but it's one of the few armchair specialist things which grinds my gears.

Is it possible the wrong decision has been made? Sure, of course. Is it likely? Jury is out on that one. Do we have all the facts? No.
 
It reads like he didn’t actually assault the person himself? Presumably that made a difference, as did perhaps the intent. Did they anticipate the man may break his neck when the other person pushed him over? It also sounds like there was no previous history of violence.

So many variables as to why he was sentenced to what he was...
 
[FnG]magnolia said:
The judge probably - hopefully - knows what he's doing. But then it's the internet and we're all as equally versed in matters of law as those who actually provide judgement on it. Not a dig dowie, btw, but it's one of the few armchair specialist things which grinds my gears.

Is it possible the wrong decision has been made? Sure, of course. Is it likely? Jury is out on that one. Do we have all the facts? No.
Click to expand...

I'll note that I did anticipate something along these lines and my argument isn't that it is necessarily an incorrect decision from a legal pov - like I said I don't doubt that someone can come along and argue that the mitigating circumstance/flipping out was legally sound as a defence and actually the sentence is in line with what should be expected (I'm not an expert so won't try and argue on that basis). My perspective is that taking a step back it seems madness that as a society we're prepared to lock up someone for trying to conceal a minor motoring offence while simultaneously letting someone get away without prison when he calls in heavies and then conceals their identities.
 
Last edited:
Really hard to say unless you know all the details. Probably a measure of favouritism involved by the judge though.

The fact? that they were masked though implies sinister intent sounds like the IRA.
 
dowie said:
My perspective is that taking a step back it seems madness that as a society we're prepared to lock up someone for trying to conceal a minor motoring offense while simultaneously letting someone get away without prison when he calls in heavies and then conceals their identities.
Click to expand...

Ever since the Norman Conquest, the role of the Law has always been far more about protecting the interests and authority of the rulers (And their revenue stream) than it has been about protecting the rights of (Saxon/British) citizens.

This is just a modern example of a very old game....!
 
Call a brown person a silly name = prison.

Don't pay your council tax = prison.

Allegedly rape a woman with evidence to prove the contrary = prison (until the police or courts admit they've been a little bit naughty/stupid).

Download some files = prison.

Break someone's neck = you silly Billy.

Stab someone in the leg = you silly Billy (note you must be a pretty woman to receive this outcome).

Things seem a bit off here...
 
Jokester said:
I would imagine the judge would have taken the constant provocation into consideration.
Click to expand...
What provocation? The story makes no mention of provocation, merely that the victims were setting up video cameras.

But, assuming there were provocation, does it justify bringing in 4 masked men to throw the ‘provocateurs’ down a slope breaking one of their necks? Does it justify withholding the information of the masked men from the police?

I think not.
 
Thekwango said:
What provocation? The story makes no mention of provocation, merely that the victims were setting up video cameras.

But, assuming there were provocation, does it justify bringing in 4 masked men to throw the ‘provocateurs’ down a slope breaking one of their necks? Does it justify withholding the information of the masked men from the police?

I think not.
Click to expand...
How would you like random people to follow you around filming you continuously as you went about your lawful business, hiding in bushes and what not? That has been going on for years now and hunts get verbally and physically abused by these sorts of groups, just because it doesn’t mention it in the article doesn’t mean it doesn’t go on.

As much as going about wearing masks is incriminating (I wonder who else does that) it doesn’t change the fact these two guys were actually found guilty of the crimes they committed and sentenced as given the circumstances presumably or do you know otherwise?
 
Jokester said:
How would you like random people to follow you around filming you continuously as you went about your lawful business, hiding in bushes and what not? That has been going on for years now and hunts get verbally and physically abused by these sorts of groups, just because it doesn’t mention it in the article doesn’t mean it doesn’t go on.

As much as going about wearing masks is incriminating (I wonder who else does that) it doesn’t change the fact these two guys were actually found guilty of the crimes they committed and sentenced as given the circumstances presumably or do you know otherwise?
Click to expand...

But they're not going about their lawful business and that's the problem.thats what these people are there to highlight.
 
Jokester said:
How would you like random people to follow you around filming you continuously as you went about your lawful business, hiding in bushes and what not? That has been going on for years now and hunts get verbally and physically abused by these sorts of groups, just because it doesn’t mention it in the article doesn’t mean it doesn’t go on.
Click to expand...
how would i like it? Obviously i wouldn't - i would be angry, probably confrontationally angry but i wouldn't resort to bringing in heavies to assualt people. if i did i would fully expect to face jail time. especially if i decided to withhold vital information from the police.

Jokester said:
As much as going about wearing masks is incriminating (I wonder who else does that) it doesn’t change the fact these two guys were actually found guilty of the crimes they committed and sentenced as given the circumstances presumably or do you know otherwise?
Click to expand...
if we're presuming, then i'm going to presume that their 'status' afforded them a degree of leniency which is not right in any way. purely speculative, 'm'lord' :p but i wonder what the outcome would have been had the 2 guys monitoring the hunt decided to call in the heavies instead, obstructed the police investigation etc........something in my gut tells me they would not have been looking at suspended sentences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom