Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lieutenant

Spared jail for being too bright

Recommended Posts

Rehabilitation is rubbish

Bottom line. Harsher sentencing wont make the difference you expect in my opinion.

If you have been to court 5 times for different offences an they are all minor and your 6th offence is minor then it is what it is. We dont need the three strikes mentality that they have in the states because it helps no one

Society doesnt take a lenient view on crime but also isnt hungry punishment no matter the cost

And yes you absolutely can be lucky to get a lenient magistrate judge or crown court judge. Thats not that strange. You might be lucky or unlucky even cos ur barrister happens to be chums with the prosecution barrister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RYDER. said:

smh ag. just throw your sociology degree certificate in the bin and be done with it, we get it, you're mad about all the student debt you have to repay 

ds gshlh af

h dh hh hs

ash

:rofl:

dead!!!

/

agree with venom

2 hours ago, VENOM said:

it does happen to let off people, incuding black people.. theres many times that certain man should have been sent down and got let off. 

thats why the justice system is too lenient tbh... however stats still show that black people are let down more. and more likely to catch a case. 

/

two quick points, if this was a drugs case I would say yep! if she was black no way would they allow her coz that's where blacks get shafted when it comes to sentencing but in other crimes it's generally ok-ish

it's also important to point out that most black ppl don't like to plead guilty at the first instance which opens them up to bigger sentences especially at crown courts

that simple act of pleading guilty reduces your sentence a lot and you are given a lot of credit for it

i'm not saying racism still doesn't play a part but when u have default shit laywers taking your case and their not advising you properly than bwoy, you will get fucked over

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairness to the judge he apparently let another woman from a working class background, unacademic and did the exact same thing to her boyfriend as what this chick did. The girls father called in to LBC to explain this. If true the judge isn't showing class favouritism. 

Now whether he is showing white or female leniency is another argument but who knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brem said:

I'm fairness to the judge he apparently let another woman from a working class background, unacademic and did the exact same thing to her boyfriend as what this chick did. The girls father called in to LBC to explain this. If true the judge isn't showing class favouritism. 

Now whether he is showing white or female leniency is another argument but who knows. 

Probably both but it's worth mentioning that when this story first broke there was a quote attributed to this guy which was something along the lines of "I don't agree with putting women in jail"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

UPDATE: An Oxford medical student stabbed her boyfriend with a bread knife. So why did she not go to prison?

Lavinia Woodward, the 24-year old Oxford student who pleaded guilty to stabbing her boyfriend with a bread knife, was sentenced yesterday at Oxford Crown Court for unlawful wounding. The case caused a splash back in May when, having entered her plea, the defendant was told by the judge that she was unlikely to receive an immediate custodial sentence, in part due to her promising medical career. Thus was born the tale of the rich, blonde, white Oxford student who was “too clever” to be sent to prison. “Too clever” appears in all headlines in quotation marks, notwithstanding that no-one in court, not least the judge, ever used these words; rather this is one of the those splendid auto-generated media myths, where one tabloid shorthand was adopted by all until everyone came to accept that these words must have been said.

chopping-board-fml980.jpg?w=300&h=300

What actually happened, as far as we can tell from the limited press reports, I dealt with at the time here. In short, the judge was impressed by various features of personal mitigation and deferred sentence, in essence giving the defendant an opportunity to show why she shouldn’t go immediately to prison. HHJ Pringle QC explained yesterday his reasons for deferring:

“[F]irstly, to allow you to continue with your counselling; secondly, for you to demonstrate over a lengthier period of time that you had truly rid yourself of your alcohol and class A drug addiction.”

Four months passed, and Ms Woodward returned to court yesterday to be sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months. After a little delay, the full sentencing remarks were published this morning here. They are mandatory reading for anyone expressing a view about the case, but to assist, let’s look briefly at how the sentencing exercise was carried out.

The facts, as summarised by the judge, were as follows:

“Having met a few months before, in October 2016 you [the Defendant] began a relationship with a student from Cambridge University. Sadly, you were still suffering from the effects of a very damaging previous relationship with another who had introduced you to class a drugs. You clearly had both drug and alcohol addictions. On 30 December 2016, your partner paid you a visit in your accommodation in Christchurch College in Oxford. It rapidly became clear to him that you had been drinking. He tried to discourage you from continuing your drinking without success. As the evening progressed, you became increasingly volatile. At one stage your partner contacted your mother over Skype in order to seek her assistance over what to do about you. When you discovered this, you became extremely angry, starting to throw objects around. It is clear from the transcript of the 999 call that your partner summoned the help of the police before you picked up a bread knife which was in the room and struck a blow with it to his lower leg. In the course of the incident two of his fingers also received cuts. Your partner managed to partly restrain you, albeit you then started to turn the knife on yourself and he had to further disarm you to prevent further self-harm. When the emergency services arrived it was abundantly clear that you were intoxicated, deeply distraught and mentally disturbed. You were taken to a police station in a very distressed state.”

Fortunately, the wounds that your partner received were relatively minor. The two 1 cm cuts to the fingers were treated at the scene with steri-strips and the cut to the leg was closed with three stitches.

The offence was unlawful wounding, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years. When sentencing, courts are required to follow the Sentencing Guidelines for assault, produced by the Sentencing Council (unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so). So let’s turn to the pages dealing with unlawful wounding and feed these facts into the matrix:

img_1426.jpg?w=219&h=300

First, the court works out what Category the case falls into, by looking at what specified features of harm and culpability are present. The judge formed the view that this was a Category 2 offence. There was lower harm due to the relatively minor nature of the injuries in the context of this type of offence – note that no-one is saying that wounds caused by a knife are not serious; but it’s all relative. An offence of unlawful wounding covers a wide range of injuries, from small breaks of the skin right up to life-threatening, body-scarring lacerations. A 3cm cut to the leg, closed by three stitches, and minor cuts to fingers treated with steri-strips, while undoubtedly horrible for the victim, are minor in the context of wounding offences. Looking at culpability, there was higher culpability by virtue of use of a knife.

Category 2 provides a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment, with a range of 12 months’ imprisonment up to 3 years. In order to work out where a defendant falls in this range, the court looks at and applies appropriate weight to other features of aggravation and mitigation, listed here:

img_1427.jpg?w=247&h=300

What do we know about the mitigation and aggravation in this case?

As far as aggravating features are concerned, the judge said:

[T]here is one non-statutory aggravating feature, namely that at the time of the offence you were heavily under the influence of alcohol. Whilst that in part was as a result of a previous and highly damaging relationship, you were old enough and intelligent enough to realise that over-indulgence would severely affect your behaviour.

But it is regarding the mitigating features that the judge had the most to say:

When I turn to look, however, for mitigating features the picture is very different. There are many mitigating features in your case. Principally, at the age of 24 you have no previous convictions of any nature whatsoever. Secondly, I find that you were genuinely remorseful following this event and, indeed, although it was against your bail conditions you contacted your partner to fully confess your guilt and your deep sorrow for what happened. Thirdly, whilst you are clearly a highly intelligent individual, you had an immaturity about you which was not commensurate for someone of your age. Fourthly, as the reports from the experts make clear, you suffer from an emotionally unstable personality disorder, a severe eating disorder and alcohol drug dependence. Finally, and most significantly, you have demonstrated over the last nine months that you are determined to rid yourself of your alcohol/drug addiction and have undergone extensive treatment including counselling to address the many issues that you face. In particular, you have demonstrated to me since I adjourned this matter in May a strong and unwavering determination so to do despite the enormous pressure under which you were put and which has been referred to by your learned counsel.

A further matter advanced in mitigation by the defendant’s counsel (as reported by the  BBC) was that she had suffered domestic violence in a previous relationship, which contributed to her substance misuse.

Taking these strands of mitigation together, it would appear that the judge considered that the starting point should be adjusted downwards from 18 months to 15 months. I say that because it seems that the defendant pleaded guilty at an early stage of proceedings, which would attract “credit” or a discount on her sentence of up to one third. Judges like starting point sentences that are easily divisible by three, so it stands to reason that, although he does not explicitly state as such in the published remarks, he took 15 months and reduced a third to arrive at his final sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment.

As for the decision to suspend the sentence, we dealt with this last time, but I’ll repeat here:

While there is no strict test for suspending a sentence of imprisonment, the Guideline offers the following pointers:

img_1428.jpg?w=300&h=128

We do not know enough to say whether any of the left hand column is made out; but it could be argued that at least two of the factors on the right apply. The court must have regard to the statutory five purposes of sentencing – punishment, reduction of crime (including by deterrence), reform and rehabilitation of offenders; protection of the public; and making reparations – and will need to assess the appropriate emphasis in any given case. While stabbing with a bread knife is plainly serious, if the injury is not particularly grave, and if the court is of the view that more can constructively be achieved by avoiding sending a promising young defendant to prison and shattering their future life prospects, instead offering in the first instance a sentence focussing on rehabilitation to address deep-rooted problems laying behind the offending, then it is arguably in service of those five principles that a suspended sentence of imprisonment, with punitive and rehabilitative requirements attached, might be imposed.

The features of mitigation identified – the mental health difficulties, the efforts to address drug and alcohol abuse, the good character, the genuine remorse – would all further support the decision to afford a defendant a chance on a suspended sentence.

Indeed, this further colour, in particular the mental health dimension, shifts the perspective significantly. It’s not just a rich white girl getting a let-off; it’s also a victim of domestic violence with severe mental health and substance misuse problems being given a chance to rebuild her life. You may not care for that latter interpretation, but it’s no less valid than the former preferred by today’s front page “Toff Justice” tabloid headlines, implicitly recycling the nasty myth that money confers mental health immunity.

So that’s the post-script. In summary, there doesn’t appear to be anything unusual in this sentence. You may disagree with its merits; you may think that all violent knife offences should result in immediate prison regardless of circumstances or personal mitigation. You may think there should be more women with mental health problems clogging up our prisons rather than receiving treatment in the outside world and trying to forge careers for themselves. But from a legal point of view, there’s little out of the ordinary. Not based on what we see in the courts in practice, with defendants of all races and social backgrounds. And I’ll close by repeating the conclusion from the earlier post:

Lest anyone be seduced by the reflexive narrative that such merciful sentences are only afforded to white, middle class defendants, let me assure you: this course (as I said in the Bashir posts) is not unusual. Where a defendant who has never been in trouble is facing a custodial sentence of  2 years or under, and where they have the prospect of employment, education or caring responsibilities, judges will often strive to avoid passing a sentence of immediate imprisonment. That is not to deny that unconscious social or racial bias plays a part in judicial decisions; basic psychology teaches us that it does, to some degree at least. But the suggestion that this exceptional course is only ever reserved for the Prom Queens (or whatever our British equivalent is) is tired and lazy. The reason you don’t hear about the suspended sentences handed down for less photogenic defendants – for the 19 year-old lad starting his apprenticeship, or the 48 year-old mobile hairdresser – is mainly because the media tends not to report on them.

As a final observation, the Telegraph reports that Ms Woodward’s QC invited the court to consider imposing a conditional discharge – the lowest form of sanction that a court can impose. The judge refused, clearly of the view that a sentence of imprisonment was required. Had the judge acceded to that invitation, the complaints that the sentence was inexplicably lenient would carry more force. As it is, for the reasons above, there appears nothing unusual, and indeed much humane, about the approach taken in this case.

Note: This post has been updated following the publication of HHJ Pringle QC’s sentencing remarks this morning.

 

 

 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/26/update-an-oxford-medical-student-stabbed-her-boyfriend-with-a-bread-knife-so-why-did-she-not-go-to-prison/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Restrictive said:

When I turn to look, however, for mitigating features the picture is very different. There are many mitigating features in your case. Principally, at the age of 24 you have no previous convictions of any nature whatsoever. Secondly, I find that you were genuinely remorseful following this event and, indeed, although it was against your bail conditions you contacted your partner to fully confess your guilt and your deep sorrow for what happened. Thirdly, whilst you are clearly a highly intelligent individual, you had an immaturity about you which was not commensurate for someone of your age. Fourthly, as the reports from the experts make clear, you suffer from an emotionally unstable personality disorder, a severe eating disorder and alcohol drug dependence. Finally, and most significantly, you have demonstrated over the last nine months that you are determined to rid yourself of your alcohol/drug addiction and have undergone extensive treatment including counselling to address the many issues that you face. In particular, you have demonstrated to me since I adjourned this matter in May a strong and unwavering determination so to do despite the enormous pressure under which you were put and which has been referred to by your learned counsel.

:rofl::rofl:

If the person was black what would happen sorry?

My man saw his own daughter in lil beck it's MAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a black kid with KSI type personality, whose parents were both doctors or barristers, and the kid is first year at oxford? 100% suspended sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light work for the average citizen 

None of that shit should matter but it does obviously, only relevant criteria is first offence which you didn't even mention

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Background should be considered although the extent you took it to shows how peak it is for (young) black people

Tbf these judges only recognize one background anyway,  and then that's where they wanna start getting lenient with justice and start taking into account the mitigating factors as we see here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kuffir said:

Tbf these judges only recognize one background anyway,  and then that's where they wanna start getting lenient with justice and start taking into account the mitigating factors as we see here

This

Taking the merits of cases into consideration

The stats say as far as the criminal justice system is concerned black lives do not matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

generally speaking blacks in the uk come from low socio- economic backgrounds which would obviously mean they cant afford decent lawyers and rely on legal aid which we know is bullshit

also blacks tend to not want to pay for lawyers despite faux displays of wealth with cars, and expensive clothes

I have known many so called ‘ballers’ who have got shifted and despite quite possibly having the means to get a decent lawyer – decide to be cheap and get legal aid

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are many of you suggesting that when Black folk get locked up that it is because of a system geared against them? 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brem said:

Are many of you suggesting that when Black folk get locked up that it is because of a system geared against them? 

not all the time but a lot of the time imo

do i need to remind you that the police have been proven time & time again to be institutionally racist?

and before it even gets to courts, black ppl are already being fucked over i.e by stops and searches

Quote

black people were six times more likely to be stopped than white people

 

The lead inspector on the HMIC report, Steve Otter, said the failings were “inexcusable”, undermined police legitimacy, and may even undermine public order. Otter, a former senior Metropolitan police officer who later served as the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, said: “Every single major report into disorder in this country since 1970 places stop and search as one of, if not the most important contributing factor, and those lessons need to be learned.”

The 13 forces of greatest concern failed to meet three out of five requirements of the stop and search reform scheme, which includes recording the outcome, such as whether an arrest is made. Those suspended from the scheme by the home secretary are Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northumbria, South Wales, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Mercia and Wiltshire.

All 43 forces in England and Wales signed up to the scheme to improve stop and search. The power has been dogged by several issues: it is disproportionately used against innocent ethnic minority Britons, it seldom leads to an arrest, and officers are failing to use it lawfully by stopping people only when they have reasonable grounds for suspicion. Today’s report found that 15% of stops may have been carried out without reasonable suspicion of criminality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Seydou said:

Brem probably thinks Asians have it worse in this country

I know some Asian man think that way.

Who has it worse off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2017 at 1:14 PM, Drift said:

Rigged for the rich first.

That's why Cowboy and his lawyers are in court hitting cases off for six.

 

22 hours ago, JOHN DOE said:

generally speaking blacks in the uk come from low socio- economic backgrounds which would obviously mean they cant afford decent lawyers and rely on legal aid which we know is bullshit

also blacks tend to not want to pay for lawyers despite faux displays of wealth with cars, and expensive clothes

I have known many so called ‘ballers’ who have got shifted and despite quite possibly having the means to get a decent lawyer – decide to be cheap and get legal aid

You man have got it twisted 

This is not merica

A duty solicitor and legal aid are two totally different kettles of fish

LOL @ thinking cowboy et al spent their own money on a legal team which is why they buss case

LOL @ thinking good barristers and QC's don't except money if it's coming from legal aid

Nonsense

Absolute nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to change the way I articulate myself on here sometimes tbh

What I was saying is

You have a budget

You choose who you recruit

That budget will get you a top barrister and a top qc along with your solicitor and whatever expert witnesses or analysis you need done

If you have a bunch of codees that arent kink even better

Cos hypotetically you would have 4 solicitors 4 barristers and 4 top qc's vs the crowns qc and junior council

This is not a thing where legal aid means they choose some crock of shit alcoholic lawyer and you just have to stick with them or get nothing

It's up to you to recruit properly

Even if you don't like how the team you chose are moving after youve recruited you can make an application to fire your legal team and get a new one casj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×