• 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.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
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.
I have to agree.

For violent crimes, it takes a lot to get jailed; even almost killing someone in a deliberate attack may not result in jail time! Someone I know (not sure what he is doing now but he was doing on-board catering for TPE a couple of years ago) was incredibly lucky after very nearly being killed by a local thug; the thug committed loads of attacks against people without much punishment before he was finally locked up for a short time (he then got out again, carried out further attacks, was put inside again... and no doubt there will be many more victims to come).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
I have to agree.

For violent crimes, it takes a lot to get jailed; even almost killing someone in a deliberate attack may not result in jail time! Someone I know (not sure what he is doing now but he was doing on-board catering for TPE a couple of years ago) was incredibly lucky after very nearly being killed by a local thug; the thug committed loads of attacks against people without much punishment before he was finally locked up for a short time (he then got out again, carried out further attacks, was put inside again... and no doubt there will be many more victims to come).

For a bit of balance there, the "thug" you mention was under 18 at the time, and got basically the maximum prison sentence, which is 2 years (minus a few for pleading guilty)
If he was above 18 then the sentence would be much higher
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
For a bit of balance there, the "thug" you mention was under 18 at the time, and got basically the maximum prison sentence, which is 2 years (minus a few for pleading guilty)
If he was above 18 then the sentence would be much higher
True though he carried out further attacks after he reached 18. But the point is: a single push in a situation like this is never going to get jail time, and even I - as someone who can clearly see that we are far, far too lenient on violent crime in the UK - can see that.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
I have to agree.

For violent crimes, it takes a lot to get jailed; even almost killing someone in a deliberate attack may not result in jail time! Someone I know (not sure what he is doing now but he was doing on-board catering for TPE a couple of years ago) was incredibly lucky after very nearly being killed by a local thug; the thug committed loads of attacks against people without much punishment before he was finally locked up for a short time (he then got out again, carried out further attacks, was put inside again... and no doubt there will be many more victims to come).

I’d like to see it reformed by getting rid of suspended sentences altogether - if you’ve done enough to receive a custodial sentence you should, in fact, go to prison - and introducing a rapidly escalating sentencing range for second, third, fourth time violent offences up to and including life, for deterrence effect.

The problem is that these people know nothing will really happen to them however badly they behave.

Won’t happen of course because of the cost.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
one assumes the offender had no intention of causing serious injury

Er, if the offender had no intention of causing her serious injury, then why did he push her in the first place?

Did it not occur to him that, by pushing her, she might fall down and injure herself?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Er, if the offender had no intention of causing her serious injury, then why did he push her in the first place?

Did it not occur to him that, by pushing her, she might fall down and injure herself?

You clearly have no idea how the law works. Please do try to research things before commenting. To start please Google the terms: mens rea and actus rea

An example: I intended to push someone out of the way. I did not intend to push them so that they fell over and hit thier head causing brain damage.

Intent in the action is the key not the result.

This is really law school day 1 stuff!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
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.

The problem is that many people ( and you will see it in this thread) revel in ignorance as to how the law is constructed, applied and administered.

There is no desire to try and understand and in then understanding criticise better. I also find the lack of suggestions as to how to fix things, beyond lock them up laughable.

You will also see cries for more people to be locked up. I always find it funny when people then complain about the cost or the plan to build new prisons near thier pleasant suburb. As if this all happens for free!

It would also help if they stopped voting for paries who cut funds for police and prison officers mind!
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
The problem is that many people ( and you will see it in this thread) revel in ignorance as to how the law is constructed, applied and administered.

There is no desire to try and understand and in then understanding criticise better. I also find the lack of suggestions as to how to fix things, beyond lock them up laughable.

You will also see cries for more people to be locked up. I always find it funny when people then complain about the cost or the plan to build new prisons near thier pleasant suburb. As if this all happens for free!

It would also help if they stopped voting for paries who cut funds for police and prison officers mind!

Quite!
You also have to bear in mind that the maximum sentences are defined in law, and also precendent from previous cases (case law)
Judges cannot willy nilly dish out any old sentence!
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
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.

I think I could push over 100 people in the way the aggravator did in the CCTV, before I got someone just right so I broke their elbow. You have to be very unfortunate to break your elbow by simply being pushed over. 99 times out of 100, pushing someone over is a mere assault or battery.

What they guy did was clearly wrong, twofold - by first fare evading and then pushing someone over who challenged him, but if we look at this dispassionately this is at the very low end of the scale for violent offences.

I don't agree with sticking people in jail for a single push.
 

pedr

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2016
Messages
223
Er, if the offender had no intention of causing her serious injury, then why did he push her in the first place?

Did it not occur to him that, by pushing her, she might fall down and injure herself?
This is the legal definition of recklessness, which is a separate concept from specific intent. If he had aimed at causing serious injury he could have been charged with a more serious offence, but assault occasioning grievous bodily harm can be committed recklessly which is why he was found guilty - it means the prosecution proved that he was aware that pushing someone over onto a hard floor could cause very serious injury, he pushed the victim, and thisbcaused the very serious injury. He may only have intended to push past but knowledge of the risk, and taking the risk in unreasonable circumstances, means he’s guilty. But as GBH includes punching someone and causing them very serious injury and a range of more serious behaviours, it seems appropriate to sentence this to leave room for harsher punishment for more serious behaviour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top