Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Student Jailed
Good.
Was he lucky not to have been charged with a more serious offence?
The film in the link is terrifying - had the extinguisher landed a few inches to its left the policeman would have been killed. Media URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8252480/Tuition-fees-sixth-form-student-jailed-for-throwing-fire-extinguisher.html
Description:
Was he lucky not to have been charged with a more serious offence?
The film in the link is terrifying - had the extinguisher landed a few inches to its left the policeman would have been killed. Media URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8252480/Tuition-fees-sixth-form-student-jailed-for-throwing-fire-extinguisher.html
Description:
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. 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.
// We have all(me included) done stupid things in our time and some of us continue to do stupid things. In my opinion it was a "spur of the moment" incident and could have been lethal.
2years 8 months is a harsh sentence for a stupid moment, which he may well regret all his life. //
I agree sqad. Really though he's been incredibly lucky. He could so easily have been serving a sentence for murder instead. If there is any silver lining to the cloud, that's it I guess.
2years 8 months is a harsh sentence for a stupid moment, which he may well regret all his life. //
I agree sqad. Really though he's been incredibly lucky. He could so easily have been serving a sentence for murder instead. If there is any silver lining to the cloud, that's it I guess.
There is one important difference between what happened here and some of the other cases that have been mentioned.
Mr Woolard was convicted of Violent Disorder, an offence which carries a maximum of five years in prison. A distinguishing feature of this offence is that, although the actions of individuals may lead to charges, it is considered a group enterprise.
Some cases which have been heard in recent years in the court of appeal:
R v Chapman (2002):
D took part in street riot over a number of hours. Threw stones at Police and re-armed himself in order to continue.3 years in YOI following a guilty plea. Sentence was upheld.
In R v Rees [2006]
It was stated “A feature of the offence is that it is not the individual conduct of one offender that is of importance but the nature of the offending as a whole.”
It is clear that this was an extremely violent episode involving a large number of people intent on causing damage and mayhem. It is unlikely that Mr Woolard was ever going to be charged with attempted murder as some have suggested. It is a notoriously difficult charge to prosecute and clear intent to kill an individual or individuals has to be proved. Had anybody been killed the charge would have been manslaughter and there is no offence of “attempted manslaughter”.
I think all those present on the ground where the object landed were extremely lucky not to have been killed or seriously injured. Mr Woolard, even for one so young, was reckless in the extreme. And this is from somebody who supposedly thinks he is intelligent enough to go on to university education.
I think the judge got it about right.
Mr Woolard was convicted of Violent Disorder, an offence which carries a maximum of five years in prison. A distinguishing feature of this offence is that, although the actions of individuals may lead to charges, it is considered a group enterprise.
Some cases which have been heard in recent years in the court of appeal:
R v Chapman (2002):
D took part in street riot over a number of hours. Threw stones at Police and re-armed himself in order to continue.3 years in YOI following a guilty plea. Sentence was upheld.
In R v Rees [2006]
It was stated “A feature of the offence is that it is not the individual conduct of one offender that is of importance but the nature of the offending as a whole.”
It is clear that this was an extremely violent episode involving a large number of people intent on causing damage and mayhem. It is unlikely that Mr Woolard was ever going to be charged with attempted murder as some have suggested. It is a notoriously difficult charge to prosecute and clear intent to kill an individual or individuals has to be proved. Had anybody been killed the charge would have been manslaughter and there is no offence of “attempted manslaughter”.
I think all those present on the ground where the object landed were extremely lucky not to have been killed or seriously injured. Mr Woolard, even for one so young, was reckless in the extreme. And this is from somebody who supposedly thinks he is intelligent enough to go on to university education.
I think the judge got it about right.
-- answer removed --
I agree with sqad and the others on here who reckon this is too harsh. The lad was an out and out fool of the highest order, ( I have just watched the video link and I think the extinguisher was dropped instead of thrown ) and while he should indeed be punished for his stupidity, this sentence is not just.
This is a symptom of people nowadays not being raised to think about the consequencies of what they do. It's always someone else's fault, hence the amount of litigation now, never the fault of the person involved.
This person is well past the age when he should know full well what he is doing and be able to think through what may be the consequence of doing it.
The sentence is harsh but may well make other hotheads think before they act irresponsibly.
This person is well past the age when he should know full well what he is doing and be able to think through what may be the consequence of doing it.
The sentence is harsh but may well make other hotheads think before they act irresponsibly.
it would be a wise world in which everyone thought about the consequences of their actions, but I don't see any evidence that he blamed anyone else. He seems to have been punished because (as NJ points out) he was in a demo, and because something bad might have happened but didn't. All told, it seems a rather harsh sentence to me - particularly compared to the much more serious business of dangerous driving, which always looks like the most risk-free way of killing someone.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
In my opinion he deserved what he got. But sentences do seem to need reviewing. One might argue that the sentence was harsh when considering the following:
The defendant was convicted for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after the accident which led to the death of the 12-year-old girl pedestrian after a hit-and-run incident.
He left the girl dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn, Lancashire, while already banned from driving. He was jailed for four months despite having a string of criminal convictions.
The defendant was convicted for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after the accident which led to the death of the 12-year-old girl pedestrian after a hit-and-run incident.
He left the girl dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn, Lancashire, while already banned from driving. He was jailed for four months despite having a string of criminal convictions.
It’s worse, jno, because of the nature of the entire event in which he became involved.
Had he been alone on the roof having just gone there for his own purposes the charge of violent disorder would not have been brought. It is the enterprise in which he was involved which is the aggravating feature. The effect on the public (and the police) of a baying mob is far more severe than that of an individual and it is that which has been recognised in the charge and the sentence. With no apologies I quote again from the Court of Appeal :
“A feature of the offence is that it is not the individual conduct of one offender that is of importance but the nature of the offending as a whole.”
This is in my view the most important aspect that led to this particular sentence. He was part of a mob that clearly set out to terrorise the area and cause as much damage and mayhem as they saw fit. The fact that he seems to have been the only one apprehended and charged (at least with violent disorder) is not really relevant. He took probably the most prominent role in the enterprise which must have been extremely disturbing for all concerned, especially the policxe officers charged with the task of sorting it out.
He chose to do it, he is old enough to know better and, as has been said, the sentence might just deter some others from behaving similarly with possibly more tragic consequences.
Had he been alone on the roof having just gone there for his own purposes the charge of violent disorder would not have been brought. It is the enterprise in which he was involved which is the aggravating feature. The effect on the public (and the police) of a baying mob is far more severe than that of an individual and it is that which has been recognised in the charge and the sentence. With no apologies I quote again from the Court of Appeal :
“A feature of the offence is that it is not the individual conduct of one offender that is of importance but the nature of the offending as a whole.”
This is in my view the most important aspect that led to this particular sentence. He was part of a mob that clearly set out to terrorise the area and cause as much damage and mayhem as they saw fit. The fact that he seems to have been the only one apprehended and charged (at least with violent disorder) is not really relevant. He took probably the most prominent role in the enterprise which must have been extremely disturbing for all concerned, especially the policxe officers charged with the task of sorting it out.
He chose to do it, he is old enough to know better and, as has been said, the sentence might just deter some others from behaving similarly with possibly more tragic consequences.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Enigmatic Variations N0 1643- Career
Crosswords15 mins ago
What Worries You Most Should Labour Win...
News24 mins ago
News25 mins ago
