• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

You be the judge (more sentencing)

anglolawyer

Banned
anglolawyer
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
13,037
Location
Guilford
Case A

What do you think of this one reported by the Daily Mail

Horrifying moment student became ‘human fireball’ after bouncer deliberately set fire to his fancy dress SHEEP costume at party
Sean Collins, 22, spent 12 hours making outfit of cotton wool and hairspray
He attended a friend's 21st birthday party at Evoque nightclub in Preston
Student, from Sunderland, was with friends when his costume caught fire
Said: 'I became a human fireball instantly - I can't begin to describe the pain'
He suffered 12 per cent burns and needed several skin grafts in hospital
Yesterday club doorman Thomas McGuiness, 24, [sentenced]
Father of two from Chorley had set Mr Collins' costume alight with lighter
He admitted unlawful wounding but said he hadn't meant to set it alight
Gasps from courtroom as footage of incident played to Prest
Click to expand...

Anybody want to guess this sentence? The victim's hand looked like this



Answer:
18 months :jaw-dropp


Case B

Just to have a second case to talk about, there is also this one in the Mail

Three women nicknamed 'Desperate Housewives' jailed for helping run £500,000 drug trafficking empire with their husbands and family from leafy spa town
Fay Read, 24, Victoria Clayton and Julie Scruton key figures in drugs ring
Read's partner Joseph McIntyre, 37, was head of Harrogate-based racket
Couple were on benefits, but enjoyed exotic holidays and designer clothes
Clayton, 54, accompanied her husband Martin, 50, on drug deals
Scruton, 45, helped brother Russell Baker, 35, store and mix drugs
Gang even hid £30,000 worth of drugs in a cemetery, court was told
Read [was sentenced] Clayton [was sentenced] Scruton [was sentenced]
Click to expand...

4 years, 5 years and 6 years respectively


Comparator - a solicitor I know got 4 1/2 years for his part in a £22M fraud, inducing a lender to believe a loan was backed by security when there was none such. He was found guilty after a trial.

So, case A and case B verdicts please.

Tragic Monkey - I am assuming you vote death for all offences, including parking tickets, except for murder for reasons I forget, so no need to post unless you have undergone a Damascene conversion to non-primate values.
 
Last edited:
A. The offender should reasonably have expected his actions to cause death or serious injury, therefore an intentional serious assault.
15 years.

B.
10/6/4 years. Also were they charged with Benefit Fraud?
However this is dependent on the nature of the drugs and in general I'm against prohibition.

Also I think TM has been reading too much Gil Hamilton. :)
 
anglolawyer said:
Tragic Monkey - I am assuming you vote death for all offences, including parking tickets, except for murder for reasons I forget, so no need to post unless you have undergone a Damascene conversion to non-primate values.
Click to expand...

You assume incorrectly!

Case A: the perpetrator is to put into a costume made identical to the victims, and set alight for precisely the same length of time. He is free to seek medical care afterward, and there will be no further punishment.

Case B: Immurement for life!

However, in presuming to predict my judgments you have demonstrated your guilt of the crime of hubris, in daring to pretend to know the workings of the mind of a monkey!! The sentence is death! By whales wrapped in wool. I'm not certain precisely how that would work, but I trust someone will figure it out and make it work.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You assume incorrectly!

Case A: the perpetrator is to put into a costume made identical to the victims, and set alight for precisely the same length of time. He is free to seek medical care afterward, and there will be no further punishment.

Case B: Immurement for life!

However, in presuming to predict my judgments you have demonstrated your guilt of the crime of hubris, in daring to pretend to know the workings of the mind of a monkey!! The sentence is death! By whales wrapped in wool. I'm not certain precisely how that would work, but I trust someone will figure it out and make it work.
Click to expand...

:mad: A thousand apologies Tragic Monkey. I shall never presume to know the workings of what you are pleased to call your 'mind' ever again. I appeal for mercy and commutation of the sentence to something not involving whales.
 
Last edited:
A - a fine. Why would he know the outfit was highly inflammable? edit: Ah, it was obviously home made, only just checked the link.

B - 3 years each
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
A - a fine. Why would he know the outfit was highly inflammable? edit: Ah, it was obviously home made, only just checked the link.

snip
Click to expand...

Hmm, but he held a lighter to the guy's clothes expecting what? Fire is kinda dangerous, isn't it?

I am reminded of the funny scene in lock stock and two smoking barrels where the black guy is rudely asked to turn the telly down in the pub and responds by ordering some exotic drink, taking a gulp, spraying it over the other guy and setting light to it. LOL. I have always wanted to do that to somebody.
 
A) Assuming the bouncer had at least two violent misdemeanor priors: 5-8 years, probably serve 3. With a felony prior, 8-13. With no priors, 3-5.

B) Dear lord, I hope they got 16 years each.


ETA: Yeesh, was I wrong.
 
Last edited:
Case A: 1 year 6 months - 2 years (although we're not told if the defendant had a record, which might effect the sentence. It's also unclear if his "admission was a guilty plea and if so when it was entered.) The conviction is for Section 20 GBH. Although the harm was serious, there are no aggravating factor or premeditation, therefore likely to be category 2 in the sentencing guidelines, for which the starting point is 1 year, 6 months.

Case B: We don't really know enough about the case - such as what the differences between the defendants was - there clearly were differences because they received different sentences. We don't even know what class of drug they were dealing, how organized they were or whether their "empire" entailed the use of violence.
At a pure guess I would say they got 2-5 years.
 
anglolawyer said:
Hmm, but he held a lighter to the guy's clothes expecting what? Fire is kinda dangerous, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Certainly, but it sounds as if the hair spray 'adhesive' had something to do with it. To me it doesn't look like malice or even anything easily predictable.

But really I was guessing at the sentence that was actually handed down, rather than giving my opinion.
 
GlennB said:
Certainly, but it sounds as if the hair spray 'adhesive' had something to do with it. To me it doesn't look like malice or even anything easily predictable.

But really I was guessing at the sentence that was actually handed down, rather than giving my opinion.
Click to expand...

That is the idea. One poster has got very close to what was actually decided. I thought the sentence in case A way off, which is why I posted it. To my mind, if you set someone on fire then it's really difficult to see why you don't pay for the consequences. If I 'glassed' somebody I might leave an attractive but harmless scar, take an eye out or sever their jugular leaving them hanging on for dear life. I don't think the sentences should be the same regardless of consequence.
 
The bouncer "said he hadn't meant to set it alight"?! Not sure I buy that.

Anyhow, he should get a significant sentence for that. Much more than 18 months. IMHO, the uk (with a relatively high assault rate) treats assaults too leniently in general.
 
Giz said:
The bouncer "said he hadn't meant to set it alight"?! Not sure I buy that.

Anyhow, he should get a significant sentence for that. Much more than 18 months. IMHO, the uk (with a relatively high assault rate) treats assaults too leniently in general.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my point. I completely agree. Violence among the lower orders is a norm which is punished in proportion to the resulting cost and inconvenience to the civilised classes.
 
Giz said:
The bouncer "said he hadn't meant to set it alight"?! Not sure I buy that.

Anyhow, he should get a significant sentence for that. Much more than 18 months. IMHO, the uk (with a relatively high assault rate) treats assaults too leniently in general.
Click to expand...

But if you 'glassed' someone you would be doing it 'premeditated' It looks to me like in case A it was a prank that went horribly wrong, there was no malice or premeditation.

Although the injury was nasty the perp didn't set out with the intention of causing the injury.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
But if you 'glassed' someone you would be doing it 'premeditated' It looks to me like in case A it was a prank that went horribly wrong, there was no malice or premeditation.

Although the injury was nasty the perp didn't set out with the intention of causing the injury.
Click to expand...

I think that it is a reasonably foreseeable result (pretend to set fire to something and it catches fire). Such a cavalier disregard for another person's safety should, when it results in easily predictable injuries, be punished severely.
 
anglolawyer said:
This is exactly my point. I completely agree. Violence among the lower orders is a norm which is punished in proportion to the resulting cost and inconvenience to the civilised classes.
Click to expand...

Worse yet, I sometimes get the impression that the great and the good feel like they are doing the lower orders a favor by being lenient. Newsflash: that isn't having a good impact on the lives of the majority of the 'lower orders'.
 
Giz said:
Worse yet, I sometimes get the impression that the great and the good feel like they are doing the lower orders a favor by being lenient. Newsflash: that isn't having a good impact on the lives of the majority of the 'lower orders'.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't, however, suggest that the UK look toward the US as an example in this regard. The poor in this country are prosecuted more often and punished more severely than the wealthy, or even the comfortable.

ETA: Relatively old statistics used in the link, and if there have been big changes I'd be interested in hearing about them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom