SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 96rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image
Good lord, is there no deterrent in this country any more against crime and thuggery. Rather than saying a custodial sentence should be a last resort, it should be the first and only resort. Otherwise the violent gutter rats of society have nothing to lose. Our judicial system is warped!
13:30 Thu 20th Jun 2019
Doesn't sound like an unnecessary criminalization scenario to me.
If we find it unfathomable goodness knows how Mariam's family feel.

Shocking.
So they've got away with it then, what planet are these judges on.
I don't see anything "weird" about it given the legal guidelines and who the assailants were.

The guidelines quoted in the article are: "...the court should ‘avoid criminalising young people unnecessarily’ and the teenagers could only be sent to custody as ‘a last resort’.".

I particularly admire the creative interpretation of the guidelines in order to avoid a custodial sentence, and its use of the adverb "unnecessarily".

Are there guidelines which help distinguish between those circumstances it is necessary to bang someone up, and those when it is not?
//...goodness knows how Mariam's family feel.//

I'm sure this question occurred to the court. My guess, however, is that in the list of questions which occurred to the court that wasn't in the top ten.
They look like bunch of healthy, well adjusted gals. I'm sure a referral order will completely devastate them heaping shame and disgrace upon them from their community and the public at large.

Said nobody.

It's no wonder folk think of revenge.
Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to these judges sitting in their ivory towers.A disgusting outcome.
The Government needs to start getting tough on these liberal judges. Problem is of course we need a Party in power that is not full of liberal elitists.

If they dont vigilantism will start to take a hold and that is a road we really dont want to go down.
// My guess, however, is that in the list of questions which occurred to the court that wasn't in the top ten. //

that is because criminal courts arent there to help the victim but to deal with the perp - who was it who said - this is in Criminal Law for Dummies ?
oh it was you Vet !

currently the view that prison doesnt work for women at all
is so strong, that there is a move not to imprison women at all !

( a thousand Abers scream: disgusting ! it will be different after Brexit ! Boris will never .... et c etc)
// The Government needs to start getting tough on these liberal judges. Problem is of course we need a Party in power that is not full of liberal elitists. //

o god - criminal law for dummies again
the govt dont choose the judges - the king has not been allowed to dismiss judges since the seventeenth century as Vetuste witheringly pointed out in another thread

judges are independent

and are kicked out at 70 - or by loyal address of both houses of parliament ( or have been convicted of a criminal offence)

but hey this is AB at 0800 - so yeah the gubmint should get a grip on dese judges and push cocktail sticks under vair finger nails if they step ouf of line - yeah ! or whisper their liberal forts in court.
oh yeah gag em first so their screams cannot be heard ! we doan want to be cruel
Thank you for bringing clarity to a previously confused debate, Pet.
When I commented I did not intimate it would be raised in court - you took my words and did that yourself.
// Thank you for bringing clarity to a previously confused debate, Pet.//
Pet thx vet

it was vetuste who pointed out the very useful - History for Dummies series the other day....
and I found another in the series - Criminal Law for Dummies
a very clear summary of a very confused field ....
why were they not tried for at least manslaughter? *&^%ing judges, really are clueless:
"Although the teenagers were not sent to custody, a district judge described them as ‘aggressive’ and should be ‘condemned’ for their actions." - that'll show em judge! F\FS!

"They were spared detention because the court should ‘avoid criminalising young people unnecessarily’ and the teenagers could only be sent to custody as ‘a last resort’." - so jailing people for killing someone is "unnecessarily criminalising" them is it? Right oh!

You couldn't make it up!
Disgusting outcome, and not being allowed to name a couple of them because they were under age, For Funks Sake, poor little snowflakes!!
I do hope that this case gets appealed!
"Age cannot wither her nor custom stale her infinite variety".

That's you, Pet.
Mind you, with a longer nose, who knows how history may have turned out/up/retroussée.
(Oops, nez's masculin innit?)
The English justice system was once renowned throughout the World, not any longer I feel.

Surely at least these savages should have been charged with carrying out a racist attack or even an Islamophobic attack.

The poor girl's parents say they are considering moving back to Egypt because England is no longer safe, proves what has now happened to this country.

AOG - // Surely at least these savages should have been charged with carrying out a racist attack or even an Islamophobic attack. //

TTT - // why were they not tried for at least manslaughter? //

The two questions have the same answer - the prosecution is unable to prove a link the attack and any motivation based on race or religion, and it was equally unable to prove a link between the attack the victim's subsequent death.

1 to 20 of 96rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Another Seemingly Weird Decision By The Courts

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.