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

[dowie]

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."

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[dowie]

sorry @Freakbro i didn't notice at the time

"They were never identified, and the Grants refused to tell officers who they might be."
so that doesn't count as non-compliance, perverting the course of justice or whatever?

I'm not sure they're obliged to legally as Jokester has pointed out.

It perhaps ought to count against them though. I mean they've entered guilty pleas and brought in character witnesses to say this is completely out of character for them etc.. and that seems to have worked. But it does seem silly that an argument of it just being a case of flipping out has been accepted when he actually called "the boys" round and waited for them to deal with them and despite the argument that it is out of character + the guilty plea they still refused to cooperate and name the masked men. Maybe this is the standard sentence for this sort of thing in spite of lack of cooperation with the police but IMO it really shouldn't be.

 

[dowie]

Have you even read the circumstabces?


https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/1...or-tells-attack-left-colleague-fractured-neck

If the second one had been more severely injured from his fall like the first then they effectively left two men to die in a ditch.


They would have had a harsher sentence if they'd clipped them with the land rover and drove off.

so it isn't even like they're random swampy/soap dodger animal rights types who have been screeching all day and generally being a nuisance... in fact they're equipped with telephoto lenses and are there simply as investigators acting on behalf of a charity... the guy who ended up with a broken neck is actually an ex police officer!

Makes it even more bizarre that this waiting around for the "boys" to arrive in masks can be passed off as some out of character moment where the hunt employee "flipped" - it isn't like they approached the hunt but rather the other way around.

 

[dowie]

Ok, what am I doing?

I’ve pointed out that:-
These guys didn’t break anyone’s neck
They are under no legal obigstion to say who did
Since they didn’t break anyone’s neck the reality is people tend not to get locked up for giving someone a punch and pushing the over as a first offence, especially when they plead guilty

There’s no doubt these guys are ****s for not naming them but the court can’t lock them up for that.

But hey, if you want to maintain the them and us narrative then I’m the 13th Duke of Wybourne, and I love a good day out fox hunting.

They were responsible for it though, it's like pointing out a gang boss who orders a murder didn't technically pull the trigger. These guys called "the boys" to come and rough up the hunt monitors and took part in that themselves, they didn't seem to have any sudden regrets or decide to call for an ambulance afterwards either.

 

[dowie]

I don’t think there was any evidence provided that there was any intent to cause the serious injuries to the other guy and there certainly wasn’t evidence they knew he was seriously injured, it was the other guy that found them after searching for him.

doesn't really matter, they were still responsible for it (thus the guilty pleas for ABH, GBH), if someone is pushed into a ditch and suffers an injury as a result then that's their problem... if the guy with a broken neck had died then they'd be looking at a more serious charge too

as for not knowing he was seriously injured, they'd just roughed him up and thrown him into a ditch, it isn't exactly that remote a possibility that they caused him some injuries... the post was though that if this was just a heat of a moment thing/him just flipping then he could easily have checked - it is a bit ridiculous in the first place though given that he didn't just flip but instead called "the boys" and then waited before actually attacking

edit - autocorrect spelling issue

 

[dowie]

I could be wrong here, but their charges were for the assault of the other guy, not the guy that broke his neck.

the blog entry posted by Tefal has some more details on the incident

"George Grant, terrier man for the Belvoir Hunt, and his son Thomas Grant pleaded guilty in early April at Leicester Crown Court to charges of grievous bodily harm on investigator Darryl Cunnington, actual bodily harm on myself,"

the GBH charge was because of the broken neck, the ABH charge was for the investigator who just got a bloody nose

 

[dowie]

Drawing blood is all you need for a gbh charge, hence why a bloody nose from a punch is more than enough to land someone with a gbh charge.

Joint venture only comes into play as far as I’m aware if it can’t be identified who carried out the fatal blow - it’s proven beyond doubt these two guys weren’t involved in the other guys assaults by the victims own testimony.

Why do you try and deflect reasoned and robust argument to your position, is it because you realise you might be actually on shaky grounds with you legal knowledge and looking to play the man rather than the argument? Classic logical fallacy that you know.

eh, the GBH charge was for the guy with the broken neck and they were ultimately responsible for it

suppose a crime boss orders a hit do you think he's not involved because he didn't pull the trigger? I don't see how you can say it is proven beyond doubt that these two guys weren't involved in the other guys assault - the key thing here is that they instigated the entire incident... not to mention they themselves pleaded guilty to it.

they're the guys who "called in the boys" and so they're responsible for the GBH and the ABH - it doesn't matter if the broken neck wasn't intentional either

 

[dowie]

I could accept that they were guilty of the ABH of the other fellow on the basis of calling in the boys, but I don’t believe there was intent to make it more serious than a push and a shove to scare them off (if the mob call a hit there is a clear intent to kill).

Either way there was a clear GBH of the guy left bloodied and possibly not on the guy with a broken neck (do broken bones count as GBH?), so odd they plead guilty to GBH to one and not the other.

it is the result that made it GBH... they clearly intended to rough up both of them thus called the boys and took part in that roughing up themselves.

AFAIK you don't have to intend to cause the specific injury in order to end up with a GBH charge - if you (for example) punch someone then the severity of the charge can be based on the extent of their injuries, people have died from a single punch etc.. and assault in one case could be GBH in another and manslaughter in another as a result of the state of the victim but with no real change in the intent of the attacker(s) - someone falls and hits their head badly and what could have been assault turns into manslaughter

I don't think it is odd they pleaded guilty, they probably had sound legal advice and they were ultimately responsible for the attack, a broken neck is rather more serious than a bloody nose