Mike Amesbury

Jail sentence has been suspended on appeal, not surprised. I know someone who broke another mans jaw in a fight and never got jail time. Seemed to me like the punishment was a reflection on who he was rather then what he did.

 

Precisely my thoughts too. Example setting.

But as Bartyke eloquently put, we are all
meant to be equal before the law.

Surprised it wasn’t suspended all along - but at least the appeal does highlight that a punishment set by a judge going a bit rogue, certainly pushing the limits of sentencing guidelines and not following precedent for similar offences without just cause, can and will be rectified.

Whether or not we as the public think he should do time for his crime is moot - those levels of assault do not routinely lead to incarceration for first offenders, especially an older person with an otherwise unblemished character, so to imprison him primarily because he’s an MP, not because of the severity of his crime, was wrong.

 

Who cares. I'd lock em up for breathing.

 

I'm currently reading A book called "noise - by Daniel Kahneman" and the first bit is about the discrepancy in sentencing for crime in the U.S, apart from the expected racist differences - black people get longer sentences for the same crime then white people, so many other things effect sentencing - like the weather, if the sentencing is before or after the judge has eaten, and other wild ****.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mike-amesbury-appeal-verdict-b2705750.html

The article here shows the assault. If I'd have done that in a unprovoked attack caught on cctv. Then lied in police interviews I'd have been abit worried I could be off jail. But like I said when huw Edwards is avoiding jail you know sentencing isn't right.

He's actually lucky the bloke doesn't fall backwards on the back of his head. Could have been alot worse. From someone who is a mp.

 

Ignorant comment.

 

Eh?

 

It was a joke comment to my post. Probably would have benefitted from a smiley to make it more obvious as such, but 100% not a serious reply from @Dyson.

There are some on here who would have posted it in all seriousness, but he isn't one of them, hence my liking it at the time.

 

The level of injury caused is a factor in how the assault is classified, based on ranges of culpability and harm. The news report of the case stated that the victim has sustained minor bruising to his head, so it would likely have fallen in category 2 for harm.

The sentence is based on what did happen, based on the evidence presented, not what could or might have happened.

Harm
In assessing the level of harm, consideration should be given to:

• the number of injuries
• severity of injury and pain suffered
• duration or longevity of any psychological harm or distress caused

Category 1

• More than minor physical or psychological harm/distress

Category 2

• Minor physical or psychological harm/distress

Category 3

• No/very low level of physical harm and/or distress

 

Yes I get all that, I've watched the video the blokes stood square on hands by his side not expecting to be punched, stood on the edge of the curb. When he punches then repeatedly punches more. I know no one gets sentenced on what could have happened. But it was quite bad and a unprovoked attack from a bloke whos meant to be serving the community.

Like said if huw avoids jail then there's no reason he shouldn't. I still don't really agree with it though.

 

Those who apply the sentencing guidelines don't necessarily agree with them, but it doesn't give them licence to disregard them.

Those who make the laws determine what the guidelines are. Ironically in this case, MP's are fundamental to that process.

Not sure what the relevance of Huw Edwards is, other than it being another case you didn't agree with the outcome of, but that will have had its own set of sentencing guidelines which will have been followed in a similar way at the time.

 

Fair enough mate and apologies to @Dyson

 

Sorry, I didn't get that it was a joke

 

Like said I thInk a shake up to the whole guidelines could be a good thing.

 

From what i can gather. Lots of sentences are based on precedence for similar crimes.The difference being in lots of cases, is, how good the lawyer defends his client. (Circumstances etc.)

 

There's no reliance on precedence in the Magistrate's Court, which is where this case was heard. Sentencing guidelines for the offence are the available resource.

Being represented will allow someone to have their case stated more professionally than an unrepresented client, but ultimately it's the facts of the case that are the relevant factor. Amesbury will have been represented in his case, but it didn't help him avoid a custodial sentence initially, prior to his appeal.

 

Cheers.

 

We are all meant to be but Tommy tyke was allowed to remain free to continue his atrocities simply because he was a banker. Women get lesser sentences for being mothers etc.

They claim we are all equal but let's be honest, the courts have never treated people equally and never will. Your job and social standing has always had an effect on the sentence you get.

 

If someone threatened me, I'd have punched their lights out, could have had a knife or gun, who knows. Fight or flight, self preservation.

 

Very true but didn't the court find no evidence at all that he'd been threatened?