: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:20 pm  

it wasn't there when I started typing....

Thanks.

Also if that's what the rules say it must be right, couldn't possibly have the rules wrong could we?

How would you feel if it was one of your kids on the receiving end of that sort of criminal incident?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:21 pm  

batleyrhino wrote:

This is appauling, just what exactly do you have to do to get sent down these days. Makes no wonder that there are incidents like this in most towns up and down the country when the "punishment" is so ridiculous.

For those that say there are not enough available spaces in prison to cater for criminals like this, what is stopping us building some more prisons, and employing people in the process?

There is so little discipline in society these days, and it's not going to change until punishments fit crimes and there are effective deterrents in place.

Disgraceful.

If you get down to your local Crown Court next week I'm sure there will be more than enough lengthy custodial sentences handed down to keep you happy.
P.S. if you ask really nicely I'll tell you which Judges to look out for

Re: OT - the judicial system : Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:22 pm  

[quote="(Broken) Time Bandit"][/quote]

The intent was the same fortunately for the victim he suffered no long term effects - looking at the footage Cockayne intended to inflict as much pain as possible.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:24 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote: If you seriously want to know what goes on in a magistrates head when he/she considers sentencing then you may want to have a look at The Magistrates Sentencing Guidelines and in particular pages 26 to 28 which cover ABH and all of the mitigating circumstances which have to be taken into account. Then go ahead have a Daily Mail rant. OK so reading that, I'm assuming he should have been sentenced in the highest category, bearing in mind he used a weapon (a shod foot - section c) and the risk of harm was high through kicking a prone victim to a vulnerable part of the body - section cii). From that looking at the sentencing I would guess that there was provocation and a guilty plea both of which would lead to the lower sentence received. Anywhere near?

McLaren_Field wrote: If you seriously want to know what goes on in a magistrates head when he/she considers sentencing then you may want to have a look at The Magistrates Sentencing Guidelines and in particular pages 26 to 28 which cover ABH and all of the mitigating circumstances which have to be taken into account. Then go ahead have a Daily Mail rant. OK so reading that, I'm assuming he should have been sentenced in the highest category, bearing in mind he used a weapon (a shod foot - section c) and the risk of harm was high through kicking a prone victim to a vulnerable part of the body - section cii). From that looking at the sentencing I would guess that there was provocation and a guilty plea both of which would lead to the lower sentence received. Anywhere near?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:25 pm  

It doesnt look nice and just looking at that you would say he deserves time (there is no excuse for kicking a man in the head). However, we do not have all the details and I'm sure the judge took EVERYTHING into consideration before making his/her judgement.

I love the bar room lawyers on here.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:26 pm  

Anyone know what caused Cockayne & mate to carry out such an attack. Not read into it all fully but have they mentioned his past & how he served in Iraq?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:27 pm  

(Broken) Time Bandit wrote:

If you get down to your local Crown Court next week I'm sure there will be more than enough lengthy custodial sentences handed down to keep you happy.
P.S. if you ask really nicely I'll tell you which Judges to look out for

That would be great, do you have a webcam link to Phuket, cos I'll be there next week.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:29 pm  

batleyrhino wrote:

How would you feel if it was one of your kids on the receiving end of that sort of criminal incident?

Probably ready to hire some thugs to do the same to him.

Which is one good reason why the law is best left to professionals.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:30 pm  

Dirty Pretty Thing wrote:

OK so reading that, I'm assuming he should have been sentenced in the highest category, bearing in mind he used a weapon (a shod foot - section c) and the risk of harm was high through kicking a prone victim to a vulnerable part of the body - section cii).

From that looking at the sentencing I would guess that there was provocation and a guilty plea both of which would lead to the lower sentence received.

Anywhere near?

You might guess so, so might I.

The court will have heard all of the facts though.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:30 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

Probably ready to hire some thugs to do the same to him.

Which is one good reason why the law is best left to professionals.

Like G1 you mean. Are you really really sure....