• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Violent thug doesn’t get jail for assaulting staff

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
http://media.btp.police.uk/r/16564/violent_fare_dodger_sentenced_after_assaulting_tf
BTP said:
“A violent fare dodger who attacked a member of Transport for London (TfL) Underground staff and left him needing surgery has today been sentenced.

Bajonar Bromfield-Nicol, 23, and of Drayton Road, Tottenham, was found guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm at Blackfriars Crown Court on 6th June, following the shocking incident at Victoria Underground station, London.

Today the Judge sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months, 150 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation requirement of 15 days. He was also ordered to pay £750 in compensation to his victim.

On 26th April 2018 at around 8pm, Bromfield-Nicol ‘double shuffled’ through the ticket barriers at Victoria without valid payment by tailgating a paying member of the public as they entered.

When challenged by the TfL member of staff he pushed him straight to the floor, causing serious injuries to the victim’s elbow and arm.

The victim’s injuries have required surgery and over 40 hospital appointments, and he is still yet to be able to return to full duties at work.”

but how on earth can this piece of vermin not get real prison time for being caught on CCTV behaving like this.

Fare dodging then launching an attack on staff that has left them with life changing injuries. What on Earth is the point in the TFL rent a quote saying it shows violence against staff isn’t tolerated.

The sentence is pathetic. It should be 3-5 years. Where is the deterrent to others? I hope the union will stand up and try to have a right go at TfL and the authorities here. Say fund an appeal for a stronger sentence. Support their member in a way that shows other people jet they’re fighting (!) for their staff. Some poor TfL staff just went to work. And this POS has basically got away with ruining their life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
I agree.
The sentence does seem ridiculously lenient.
Not certain that having a go at TfL will help ? This looks to me like a failure by the court to impose a stiffer sentence, rather than any failing of the victims employer.
 

LewFinnis

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
107
Possibly one of those cases where the victim can ask the Attorney-General to appeal against the sentence?
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
I agree.
The sentence does seem ridiculously lenient.
Not certain that having a go at TfL will help ? This looks to me like a failure by the court to impose a stiffer sentence, rather than any failing of the victims employer.
I am surprised TfL are using it as an example showing that violence will not be tolerated. I am surprised it doesn’t say a conviction is good, but the sentence isn’t good enough. And that TFL will do its utmost to ensure the most serious penalties for people who abuse and assault its valued staff.

In other word, I am surprised that they are relatively promoting this one as “justice”. It clearly isn’t.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
He might have preferred a prison sentence to the 150 hours community service and the £750 he's got to fork out?
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Right, but what deterrence is that when he’s likely to argue he pays a fine st a fiver a month. Then doesn’t pay. The hope, and sadly we are likely to be paying for it, is there is decent criminal injuries compensation for this TfL staffer.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
http://media.btp.police.uk/r/16564/violent_fare_dodger_sentenced_after_assaulting_tf


but how on earth can this piece of vermin not get real prison time for being caught on CCTV behaving like this.

Fare dodging then launching an attack on staff that has left them with life changing injuries. What on Earth is the point in the TFL rent a quote saying it shows violence against staff isn’t tolerated.

The sentence is pathetic. It should be 3-5 years. Where is the deterrent to others? I hope the union will stand up and try to have a right go at TfL and the authorities here. Say fund an appeal for a stronger sentence. Support their member in a way that shows other people jet they’re fighting (!) for their staff. Some poor TfL staff just went to work. And this POS has basically got away with ruining their life.

While I generally agree with your comments, it's important to note that the injuries were *not* life threatening as you indicated.

I totally agree with others that the sentence seems unduly lenient.
 

jamesst

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,114
Location
Merseyside
http://media.btp.police.uk/r/16564/violent_fare_dodger_sentenced_after_assaulting_tf


but how on earth can this piece of vermin not get real prison time for being caught on CCTV behaving like this.

Fare dodging then launching an attack on staff that has left them with life changing injuries. What on Earth is the point in the TFL rent a quote saying it shows violence against staff isn’t tolerated.

The sentence is pathetic. It should be 3-5 years. Where is the deterrent to others? I hope the union will stand up and try to have a right go at TfL and the authorities here. Say fund an appeal for a stronger sentence. Support their member in a way that shows other people jet they’re fighting (!) for their staff. Some poor TfL staff just went to work. And this POS has basically got away with ruining their life.

And they wonder why rail staff don't bother reporting incidents to btp...
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
While I generally agree with your comments, it's important to note that the injuries were *not* life threatening as you indicated.

I totally agree with others that the sentence seems unduly lenient.

But he was convicted of Grevious bodily harm, the injuries would have been pretty serious
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
But he was convicted of Grevious bodily harm, the injuries would have been pretty serious

It does specify 'serious injuries to the elbow and arm' - so can certainly be categorised as grevious bodily harm.

My point was simply that there is no reference at all to 'life threatening'.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Grevious bodily harm means that the skin was broken, that's all, (ABH means a bruising type of injury).
So GBH could just be a minor cut or stress split.
 
Last edited:

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
My point was simply that there is no reference at all to 'life threatening'.

There was no reference to it in this thread until you introduced it. Unless it was edited out of the OP by that moderator intervention?
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
And they wonder why rail staff don't bother reporting incidents to btp...

Surely the issue is with the court and judge, not the btp.

It seems irrational not to report assault. If it is reported, there is a non-zero chance the perpetrator will be caught and punished appropriately. If it is not reported, there is zero chance of the perpetrator being caught and punished. A non-zero chance of nailing the perpetrator with justice is better than zero chance of it happening.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
Right, but what deterrence is that when he’s likely to argue he pays a fine st a fiver a month. Then doesn’t pay.
A suspended sentence is conditional on good behaviour, I thought?

BTW the maximum sentence for GBH is 5 years.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
BTW the maximum sentence for GBH is 5 years.

Are you sure about that?
It's 7 years, for a section 20, but section 18 (GBH with intent, with or without a weapon) carries a life sentence
 
Joined
7 Jan 2009
Messages
859
Certainly too light a sentence but also worth noting just how prevalent tail-gating is on LUL. There's not much visible enforcement; after this sentence, there will surely be even less... Perhaps LUL could retime the gates so that they close more quickly?
 

maire23

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2017
Messages
105
Location
Rural E Mids
Grevious bodily harm means that the skin was broken, that's all, (ABH means a bruising type of injury.
So GBH could just be a minor cut or stress split.
When I studied Law GBH meant something serious like a broken bone (admittedly this was 20 years ago at A Level) And my previous nursing career tells me that an injury requiring multiple hospital appointments and surgery as it has is not a minor cut! Sounds to me like a complex fracture which I imagine isn’t too difficult when someone is pushed with force, especially backwards and then falls on their arm. I imagine pins or some degree of metalwork was involved- that’s pretty serious.
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,768
Location
Nottinghamshire
While I generally agree with your comments, it's important to note that the injuries were *not* life threatening as you indicated.

The OP referred to "life CHANGING" injuries, not life threatening. I would be of the opinion that injuries resulting in 40+ hospital appointments could well be regarded as life changing.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Whilst I don’t know about the case specifics, it appears the judge has followed the sentencing guidelines. For example, the attack was not premeditated, and no weapon was involved, it was a single ‘push’ (or blow) and one assumes the offender had no intention of causing serious injury (or, at least, his lawyer would have argued that). These are all factors which reduce the aggravating factors and culpability. Further, if the offender had no previous, and showed remorse during the trial, then it appears that the sentence is correct as per the guidelines.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...-religiously-aggravated-gbhunlawful-wounding/

(Too much to paste in).
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Whilst I don’t know about the case specifics, it appears the judge has followed the sentencing guidelines. For example, the attack was not premeditated, and no weapon was involved, it was a single ‘push’ (or blow) and one assumes the offender had no intention of causing serious injury (or, at least, his lawyer would have argued that). These are all factors which reduce the aggravating factors and culpability. Further, if the offender had no previous, and showed remorse during the trial, then it appears that the sentence is correct as per the guidelines.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...-religiously-aggravated-gbhunlawful-wounding/

(Too much to paste in).
That will disappoint the 'hanging's too good for them' brigade.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
That will disappoint the 'hanging's too good for them' brigade.

Quite.

I’m not voicing an opinion on whether the sentencing guidelines are too lenient, or not, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the judge has followed them correctly.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Whilst I don’t know about the case specifics, it appears the judge has followed the sentencing guidelines. For example, the attack was not premeditated, and no weapon was involved, it was a single ‘push’ (or blow) and one assumes the offender had no intention of causing serious injury (or, at least, his lawyer would have argued that). These are all factors which reduce the aggravating factors and culpability. Further, if the offender had no previous, and showed remorse during the trial, then it appears that the sentence is correct as per the guidelines.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...-religiously-aggravated-gbhunlawful-wounding/

(Too much to paste in).

I think you've summed it up very well, it may well have been a split second reaction which he subsequently regrets and it's not as if he's got off scot free. He has a suspended sentence hanging over him, community service to do and a considerable amount of compensation to pay.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Whilst I don’t know about the case specifics, it appears the judge has followed the sentencing guidelines. For example, the attack was not premeditated, and no weapon was involved, it was a single ‘push’ (or blow) and one assumes the offender had no intention of causing serious injury (or, at least, his lawyer would have argued that). These are all factors which reduce the aggravating factors and culpability. Further, if the offender had no previous, and showed remorse during the trial, then it appears that the sentence is correct as per the guidelines.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...-religiously-aggravated-gbhunlawful-wounding/

(Too much to paste in).

Plus you also need to see a transcript of the summing up by the judge to determine if the sentance is correct. This is rarely reported.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
I think you've summed it up very well, it may well have been a split second reaction which he subsequently regrets and it's not as if he's got off scot free. He has a suspended sentence hanging over him, community service to do and a considerable amount of compensation to pay.
He pleaded not guilty.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,034
Location
No longer here
Whilst I don’t know about the case specifics, it appears the judge has followed the sentencing guidelines. For example, the attack was not premeditated, and no weapon was involved, it was a single ‘push’ (or blow) and one assumes the offender had no intention of causing serious injury (or, at least, his lawyer would have argued that). These are all factors which reduce the aggravating factors and culpability. Further, if the offender had no previous, and showed remorse during the trial, then it appears that the sentence is correct as per the guidelines.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...-religiously-aggravated-gbhunlawful-wounding/

(Too much to paste in).

A shame I had to get to post 20 to find someone speaking a little sense.

The man tailgated and pushed the member of staff over, then picked up his bag and left.

You don't go to prison for that.

I hope the member of staff makes a full recovery - they seem very unfortunate to have picked up such a serious injury from simply being pushed to the ground.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
You don't go to prison for that.

From the guidance:

A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.

So the judge has concluded that a custodial sentence is merited in this case, but has chosen to suspend it for other reasons (which none of us know enough to comment on without reading the transcript).

More generally, there does seem to be an increasing disconnect between what the justice system thinks should happen to those who walk around dishing out violence with impunity, and what the public thinks should happen to them.

I’m not at all sure that’s a good thing.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
TfL and the victim should push for civil restitution as well. TfL for the costs of finding cover for the injured employee while off work sick and the victim for expenses caused by their injury and damages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top