Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Legally - yes.

He received the appropriate sentence for the crime of which he was convicted.

We should also be wary of taking on board the sensationalising headlines which the Mail does so well.

The headline advises that the man 'poured superglue down her throat', implying that this was simple random sadism.

The truth is, he was trying to repair her broken tooth.

That does not make his behaviour correct, or excusable, but neither does it make it the random violence that the headline implies.

Once again, the Mail does not allow the truth to get in the way of its routinely hysterical and OTT sub-editors' work.
On the face of it, no it doesn't sound long enough.

However the Court had all the details, I don't.
-- answer removed --
//Once again, the Mail does not allow the truth to get in the way of its routinely hysterical and OTT sub-editors' work. //

andy, the story originated in the local paper, the chronicle.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/ticking-timebomb-broke-partners-tooth-12370626

are you suggesting someone at the DM told them what to write?
The link say he did both- //He said he was going to try to fix her broken false tooth and got some super glue and started to pour it down her throat//
I don't know which mental health problems they are referring to, but that might make some difference.
"This was a serious and sustained attack on a vulnerable lady and there was gratuitous degradation in the forcible removal of her underwear"

So said the judge, Mr Recorder Smith, in his sentencing remarks. The maximum sentence for ABH is five years. Quite how Mr Recorder Smith got this sentence down to around a quarter of that is difficult to fathom. From the description it clearly falls into the highest category of seriousness (as confirmed by the judge’s remarks). The “starting point” for such an offence is eighteen months. This offence clearly warrants more than the starting point and the normal sentencing range goes up to three years. Again using the description the judge may feel fully justified in going beyond the normal range as this was clearly not a “normal” example of ABH. The victim must have been absolutely petrified. I should think four years would be nearer the mark but the offence was admitted so a full one third discount must be allowed for a guilty plea. That would bring the sentence down to 32 months (still inadequate in my view, but about the best that can be expected under the guidelines).

Incidentally, this outstanding example of mankind will not serve eight months. Provided he has a suitable address to go to he will almost certainly qualify for “Home Detention Curfew”. Prisoners sentenced to sixteen months are normally released under HDC after serving just four months (less, of course, any time they may have spent in custody on remand).
And I accept that I was basing my remarks (roughly) on the description provided. I agree that we don't know all the facts.
The link to the local paper says he tried to fix her tooth by pouring super glue down her throat but stopped when she objected. It also says he had already spent 'a considerable time on remand' before being sentenced.
So as time on remand is deducted from the sentence , it looks like the 'Wail' is being even more 'economical with the truth' than has been suggested so far.
I am sure that you will sucess in life for 8 month. If you read all bangla newspaper
I'm not sure why you regularly refer to Bangla newspapers in your posts, ray
-- answer removed --
Has it taken you 3 days to think of that? X
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Is 8 Months Enough For This?

Answer Question >>