The so-called Justice system

F

Fish

Well-known member
Banned
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
18,384
Visit site
.....is a joke.

This is a cowardly attack on a vulnerable person, a real judas punch as well :angry:

This judge, Keith Cutler is also shrouded in previous controversial acts and sentences.

Only a 4 year sentence for taking someone's life when already on a suspended sentence for robbery which will see him out in 2 years!

No wonder we have no confidence in the law and justice system in this country, for once the police got their man and no doubt thought they had rid the streets of this troublemaker and then were let down by one of these 'out of touch', attention seeking judges!

The video is very graphic further down the article and after watching it, exactly how the judge would have, how on earth did he only get 4 years?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ement-killer-jailed-just-four-half-years.html
 
Does seem light!

However, I note the Daily Mail - never a stranger to some judicious trimming of stories - didn't mention what the 'provocation' was.

Sentence can be appealed of course!
 
Foxholer said:
Does seem light!

However, I note the Daily Mail - never a stranger to some judicious trimming of stories - didn't mention what the 'provocation' was.

Sentence can be appealed of course!
Click to expand...

'Provocation' your having a laugh aren't you!

The lad spoke to the guy on the bike stating it was dangerous to ride on the pavement, the other guy (the attacker) came up and around slightly later and whilst the victim was still speaking and looking at the guy on the bike going away, the attacker lined him up and hit him!

What provocation was there to the attacker.....?

"Seems light", its dam right ridiculous and should be a minimum of 10 years served!
 
Fish said:
'Provocation' your having a laugh aren't you!

The lad spoke to the guy on the bike stating it was dangerous to ride on the pavement, the other guy (the attacker) came up and around slightly later and whilst the victim was still speaking and looking at the guy on the bike going away, the attacker lined him up and hit him!

What provocation was there to the attacker.....?

"Seems light", its dam right ridiculous and should be a minimum of 10 years served!
Click to expand...

From the Daily Mail report;

The judge told the hearing at Salisbury Crown Court on Friday that the case lay somewhere between murder and manslaughter.

‘I bear in mind your early guilty plea. I accept there is no pre-meditated element and provocation does exist,’ he told Gill.


So, what was the provocation? Having said that, if the judge says it lies somewhere between murder and manslaughter then it hardly justifies his sentencing. I'd also like to know his reasons behind holding a silence for Mark Duggan.
 
Blue in Munich said:
From the Daily Mail report;

The judge told the hearing at Salisbury Crown Court on Friday that the case lay somewhere between murder and manslaughter.

‘I bear in mind your early guilty plea. I accept there is no pre-meditated element and provocation does exist,’ he told Gill.


So, what was the provocation? Having said that, if the judge says it lies somewhere between murder and manslaughter then it hardly justifies his sentencing. I'd also like to know his reasons behind holding a silence for Mark Duggan.
Click to expand...

According to the local paper

Mr Young had exchanged words with Victor Ibitoye, who had been riding a pedal cycle on the pavement in Charminster Road, before he said: “Why don't you go back to the jungle?”

I'm not defending the fella, but there's your provocation.
 
Some sentences handed out these days are an absolute joke.
 
therod said:
According to the local paper

Mr Young had exchanged words with Victor Ibitoye, who had been riding a pedal cycle on the pavement in Charminster Road, before he said: “Why don't you go back to the jungle?”

I'm not defending the fella, but there's your provocation.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't suggest you were defending him. No justification for that comment but the comment is no defence for the reaction.

Be interesting to know who, other than the defendant, heard the comment made; granted my knowledge of Aspergers Syndrome is limited, but is someone with Aspergers likely to come out with a comment like that to a complete stranger?
 
Foxholer said:
Does seem light!

However, I note the Daily Mail - never a stranger to some judicious trimming of stories - didn't mention what the 'provocation' was.

Sentence can be appealed of course!
Click to expand...

This is all true. I hesitate to believe at face anything the Mail reports on matters such as this.#

And it is an unfortunate fact that the assailant did not intend to kill the guy. And if what @therod says as being reported well there is the provocation.

I don't particularly like the sentence but I can perhaps understand it and so my moral outrage is contained.
 
Last edited:
Blue in Munich said:
Wouldn't suggest you were defending him. No justification for that comment but the comment is no defence for the reaction.

Be interesting to know who, other than the defendant, heard the comment made; granted my knowledge of Aspergers Syndrome is limited, but is someone with Aspergers likely to come out with a comment like that to a complete stranger?
Click to expand...

I was getting my defence in first before I got accused of being an apologist.

It was submitted and accepted in court so the fact the comment was made is a fact.

What the convicted fella did was inexcusable, and should be punished to a greater degree, however provacation did exist, the comment itself is illegal. I don't know whether the victims' condition played a part. My point is the victim isn't the Boy Scout the Mail made him out to be.
 
Blue in Munich said:
I'd also like to know his reasons behind holding a silence for Mark Duggan.
Click to expand...

Another classic piece of DM manipulation!

Judge Cutler was also the Judge for the Mark Duggan inquest. And it was there that he had the 20 sec silence for him.

From your post, I believe you got the impression that it was at this trial that the silence was called.

therod said:
What the convicted fella did was inexcusable, and should be punished to a greater degree, however provacation did exist, the comment itself is illegal. I don't know whether the victims' condition played a part. My point is the victim isn't the Boy Scout the Mail made him out to be.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely.

Given his condition, however, he may actually be one - but (also no excuse) the attacker wasn't to know that.

My gripe with the DM is that the sensationalist reporting polarises 'society' and, imo, actually contributes to the occurrence of incidents like the one that led to the case!
 
Last edited:
Just heard on the Radio that the attorney general may look at the case in light of the lenient sentence.

It's probably the right decision, would it have been done anyway or is it politically motivated. I could make a guess :o
 
therod said:
I was getting my defence in first before I got accused of being an apologist.

It was submitted and accepted in court so the fact the comment was made is a fact.

What the convicted fella did was inexcusable, and should be punished to a greater degree, however provacation did exist, the comment itself is illegal. I don't know whether the victims' condition played a part. My point is the victim isn't the Boy Scout the Mail made him out to be.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean about it being submitted and accepted at court. However looking at the video, there seems to be the cyclist, a young lady and the defendant all with the victim (and possibly a 4th bloke in the black anorak). If they all say that was what was said, who can disprove it? Obviously not the victim, and there doesn't seem to be anyone else in shot. I know that the video isn't the best quality, but the victim doesn't seem to be saying a lot immediately before he was hit, and it is certainly a useful piece of mitigation if you are looking at a murder charge.

I'm not trying to suggest that the victim was a Boy Scout, but if he was suffering from a recognised medical condition then equally he might not be entirely accountable for his actions, but from what limited knowledge I have, I'd be surprised if it was actually said.
 
If the guy on the bike had lashed out in response to the comment made to him, that's provocation. The comment wasn't made to the offender. How is that provocation?

And half way between murder and manslaughter is worth only 4 years, even with a criminal record - good job it wasn't manslaughter then or he'd already be out...
 
therod said:
Just heard on the Radio that the attorney general may look at the case in light of the lenient sentence.

It's probably the right decision, would it have been done anyway or is it politically motivated. I could make a guess :o
Click to expand...

I hope he does!

Given the nature of the position of the Attorney General, it's definitely 'political', but not necessarily in a bad way. By convention, AG doesn't attend Cabinet meetings, unless asked, to make the distinction between his legal advice and any decisions he may be party to. He is, however, in charge of the CPS, which would have been the prosecutor in this case. So he may direct them to appeal over the leniency - or not.

Btw. Hearing on the Radio that 'the attorney general may look at the case in light of the lenient sentence' doesn't mean he will - that may be just someone's opinion. In fact I nearly posted pretty much exactly that in my first post!
 
Last edited:
I read it in our local paper yesterday , does not matter what was said , but to get 4 years for taking someone`s life is a joke , there is real problems with the law over here , we are far too soft and are paying for it as a result , the lawyers are making good money out of things like this while the rest of us have to live with it , just how the guy`s family must be feeling about the sentence I can only guess , we had another thread like this last week , its really time to get the law sorted otherwise people will know they can get away with it and you have a lawless society , we already have it now with drunks smashing phone boxes , signpost , bus shelters and so on , no respect for the law , in Singapore if you caught doing that you soon know about let me tell you that's why it does not happen , before the others come on and have a dig , I respect the law so it bothers me not how tough the law is because I obey it and it does not apply to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Britain's soft justice system
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tashyboy
Tashyboy
shewy
The justice system is nuts
Replies
7
Views
684
Deleted member 1740
D
bladeplayer
Lost the bit of faith i did have in the law
Replies
2
Views
731
Rooter
Rooter
Herbie
What a judge........
Replies
5
Views
921
vig
V
Top