Another barking mad sentence

[rothschild]

Do our magistrates ever live in the real world. Someone lobs a tangerine and gets a huge court case, and all the expense, and gets banned from matches for 3 years

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/sheffield-wednesday-fan-banned-from-matches-for-three-years-1-7096724

 

Yet serious criminals get piddling sentences handed to them. I just wish our magistrates had some common sense and guidlines for sentencing.

 

I see the point that you are making here Woodmally but it would appear that I might be the only one.

 

I also agree with you. He got his just deserts but many who have committed much worse crimes have received dis-proportionately lesser punishments. I think it all depends on which side of the bed the one handing down the punishments happened to roll out of on the day.

[Dannyno]

I see the point that you are making here Woodmally but it would appear that I might be the only one.

 

I also agree with you. He got his just deserts but many who have committed much worse crimes have received dis-proportionately lesser punishments. I think it all depends on which side of the bed the one handing down the punishments happened to roll out of on the day.

 

It's in line with the sentencing guidelines, which I posted earlier. Not to say that the guidelines are perfect, mind you, but to blame it on a magistrate/judge getting out of bed the wrong side is nonsense.

 

Dan

[cgksheff]

"... our magistrates ......"

 

Perhaps people need to understand who magistrates are, before criticising.

Are you prepared to contribute to society?

https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/what-magistrates-do

[Dannyno]

Here's how it works.

 

So the guy has chucked "a missile" at a football match. This is against the law according to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/19/section/2)

 

Throwing of missiles.

It is an offence for a person at a designated football match to throw anything at or towards—

(a)the playing area, or any area adjacent to the playing area to which spectators are not generally admitted, or

(b)any area in which spectators or other persons are or may be present,without lawful authority or lawful excuse (which shall be for him to prove).

 

According to the sentencing guidelines (here, remember: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MCSG_web_-_October_2014.pdf), the starting point for this offence is a Band C fine. (p.62)

 

Fines are explained on p148 of the same document. Band C is the highest band, and the starting point for any fine is 150% of weekly income, which can be varied up or down according to criteria, in the range 125%-175%.

 

Note that throwing a missile is a "level 3 fine", which sets the maximum. The maximum fine for a level 3 fine is £1000. So the starting point is whatever it is at Band C, up to that maximum.

 

The preceding explanation (p145-) in the document sets out the criteria. So, is it a first time offence, is there mitigation, has the offender pleaded guilty.

 

In this case he seems to have admitted the offence, so that will have been taken into account.

 

P.62 of the guidelines sets out the other things to be taken into account.

 

It then says "consider ancillary orders". So we turn to p.168-, and we find this on p172:

 

Football banning orders

• The court must make a football banning order where an offender has been convicted of a relevant offence and it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder.If the court is not so satisfied, it must state that

fact and give its reasons.

• Relevant offences are those set out in schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989; see Annex A.

• The order requires the offender to report to a police station within five days, may require the offender to surrender his or her passport, and may impose requirements on the offender in relation to any regulated football matches.

• Where the order is imposed in addition to a sentence of immediate imprisonment, the term of the order must be between six and ten years. In other cases, the term of the order must be between three and five years.

 

The Football Spectators Act is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/37/contents

 

This tells us (section 14F), that:

 

In any other case where the order is made under section 14A above [on conviction], the maximum is five years and the minimum is three years.

 

So he got the minimum banning order.

[woodmally]

Here's how it works.

 

So the guy has chucked "a missile" at a football match. This is against the law according to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/19/section/2)

 

 

 

According to the sentencing guidelines (here, remember: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MCSG_web_-_October_2014.pdf), the starting point for this offence is a Band C fine. (p.62)

 

Fines are explained on p148 of the same document. Band C is the highest band, and the starting point for any fine is 150% of weekly income, which can be varied up or down according to criteria, in the range 125%-175%.

 

Note that throwing a missile is a "level 3 fine", which sets the maximum. The maximum fine for a level 3 fine is £1000. So the starting point is whatever it is at Band C, up to that maximum.

 

The preceding explanation (p145-) in the document sets out the criteria. So, is it a first time offence, is there mitigation, has the offender pleaded guilty.

 

In this case he seems to have admitted the offence, so that will have been taken into account.

 

P.62 of the guidelines sets out the other things to be taken into account.

 

It then says "consider ancillary orders". So we turn to p.168-, and we find this on p172:

 

 

 

The Football Spectators Act is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/37/contents

 

This tells us (section 14F), that:

 

 

 

So he got the minimum banning order.

 

Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to explain it Danny that does make sense. I think my frustration bores out from the fact that I have read other sentences that seem extreme in different ways.

 

This for example was a customer who made a childish prank yet had to do two full weeks worth of work to pay back his crimes which didnt harm anybody

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tesco-customer-put-explicit-image-8554149

 

Yet on the other end of the spectrum a good samaritan who tried to help gets beaten to a pulp and the sentence is leniant to say the least

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942717/Good-Samaritan-teenager-left-dead-battered-face-multiple-fractures-beaten-man-stopped-help.html

 

I just cannot understand the logic in sentences sometimes from the untrained eye.

[ECCOnoob]

Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to explain it Danny that does make sense. I think my frustration bores out from the fact that I have read other sentences that seem extreme in different ways.

 

This for example was a customer who made a childish prank yet had to do two full weeks worth of work to pay back his crimes which didnt harm anybody

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tesco-customer-put-explicit-image-8554149

 

Yet on the other end of the spectrum a good samaritan who tried to help gets beaten to a pulp and the sentence is leniant to say the least

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942717/Good-Samaritan-teenager-left-dead-battered-face-multiple-fractures-beaten-man-stopped-help.html

 

I just cannot understand the logic in sentences sometimes from the untrained eye.

 

The "prank" that unharmed anyone received no "sentence" other than some community service and a fine.

 

The more serious offence was punished with 18 months in prison.

 

Two completely different types of punishment. One was treated with a slap on the wrist. The other locked away in prison for a term up to 18 months (despite the daily mail's predictable ASSUMPTION that they would out in 6 which of course is a load of balls if the prisoner was on any sanctions during their tariff)

 

It may appear lenient but I don't really know what more people would expect for a (....although shocking) non fatal, non weapon, non pre-mediated attack.

 

The victims injuries are shocking to look at yes, but he was still able to take a selfie, was out of hospital in a week and returned to work within 12 weeks. Psychological problems ongoing yes but physically not suffered any catastrophic. Unfortunately judges can only work within the sentencing guidelines they are set. I agree that they should be overhauled but until such day comes their hands are tied.

 

Nobody, including the DM knows anything about the case. Nobody knows anything about the attacker. He may be on drugs, he may have mental health issues he may have 101 other reasons which mitigated his actions and a Judge can only made a judgment on what he is presented with and rule on what his guidelines say.

[Misty 8T]

The "prank" that unharmed anyone received no "sentence" other than some community service and a fine.

 

The more serious offence was punished with 18 months in prison.

 

Two completely different types of punishment. One was treated with a slap on the wrist. The other locked away in prison for a term up to 18 months (despite the daily mail's predictable ASSUMPTION that they would out in 6 which of course is a load of balls if the prisoner was on any sanctions during their tariff)

 

It may appear lenient but I don't really know what more people would expect for a (....although shocking) non fatal, non weapon, non pre-mediated attack.

 

The victims injuries are shocking to look at yes, but he was still able to take a selfie, was out of hospital in a week and returned to work within 12 weeks. Psychological problems ongoing yes but physically not suffered any catastrophic. Unfortunately judges can only work within the sentencing guidelines they are set. I agree that they should be overhauled but until such day comes their hands are tied.

 

Nobody, including the DM knows anything about the case. Nobody knows anything about the attacker. He may be on drugs, he may have mental health issues he may have 101 other reasons which mitigated his actions and a Judge can only made a judgment on what he is presented with and rule on what his guidelines say.

 

I actually know the person in question, he is of sound mind and as the DM say he works for a charity and gives back to his community. Hes harlmess, a geek as such and all you have to do is look at the photo of him printed in the DM/star to note this.

[woodmally]

I actually know the person in question, he is of sound mind and as the DM say he works for a charity and gives back to his community. Hes harlmess, a geek as such and all you have to do is look at the photo of him printed in the DM/star to note this.

 

I presume the harmless person you refer to is the one that got beaten up. If so I am not sure anyone was saying he wasnt. It was a totally unjustified attack on the poor guy who was trying to do the right thing.

[Misty 8T]

I presume the harmless person you refer to is the one that got beaten up. If so I am not sure anyone was saying he wasnt. It was a totally unjustified attack on the poor guy who was trying to do the right thing.

 

No, the guy who threw the orange.

[cuttsie]

He must bear the fruit of his actions since the Peelers caught him.

I was at a match between Notts County and Owls and the Notts fans chucked an apple at Peter Springett, Peter gave them the thumbs up and ate the apple.

He got a standing ovation .