Thread: Student jailed for confronting muggers

Originally Posted by Iolis

It seems to me that that Hughes LJ applied the law in a common-sense way on appeal. The defendant appears to have pleaded guilty to both charges at first instance which is rather curious given the circumstances as reported in the press. If he has given chase immediately to retrieve his property then he is entitled to so so and the question turns on whether the force used by him was reasonable in all the circumstances. Consideration of that question is redundant if he has pleaded guilty.

He has probably pleaded guilty because he was advised to with very little consideration of the relevant circumstances.

I can't imagine that his solicitor or barrister would have advised him to plead guilty, it doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by Iolis

It seems to me that that Hughes LJ applied the law in a common-sense way on appeal. The defendant appears to have pleaded guilty to both charges at first instance which is rather curious given the circumstances as reported in the press. If he has given chase immediately to retrieve his property then he is entitled to so so and the question turns on whether the force used by him was reasonable in all the circumstances. Consideration of that question is redundant if he has pleaded guilty.

He has probably pleaded guilty because he was advised to with very little consideration of the relevant circumstances.

I can't imagine that his solicitor or barrister would have advised him to plead guilty, it doesn't make sense.

Oh I don't know. A friend of mine was advised to plead guilty even though he was innocent because the defence solicitor said there was little hope of convincing a jury and that he would only get a fine anyway.

Ended up going down for two years.

Once he'd pleaded guilty he couldn't change it. Convicted and that is that.

The defence solicitor in question was known locally as "Plead Guilty" Hanson because it was invariably his advice to anybody charged with anything.

Fortunately he is no longer practising as he was found to have been embezzling client funds and generally practising fraud on a massive scale. Pleased to see he followed his own advice and chose to "plead guilty"

Originally Posted by Iolis

It seems to me that that Hughes LJ applied the law in a common-sense way on appeal. The defendant appears to have pleaded guilty to both charges at first instance which is rather curious given the circumstances as reported in the press. If he has given chase immediately to retrieve his property then he is entitled to so so and the question turns on whether the force used by him was reasonable in all the circumstances. Consideration of that question is redundant if he has pleaded guilty.

He has probably pleaded guilty because he was advised to with very little consideration of the relevant circumstances.

Iolis - please could you advise, according to the DT article the defendent picked up a knife that had been dropped by one of his attackers. Now I thought (and this is a barrack room gossip) that if you pick up a weopon dropped by someone who attacks you and then utilise that weopon the law considers it to be self defence as you were not the original carrier. Or am I talking B*llocks?

On top of the suspended sentence, the Appeal Court also imposed an 18-month supervision order and 100 hours of unpaid work on Mr Lawrence.

so he didn't get off that lightly, still got a criminal record, did the muggers get unpaid work as well? or sent on holiday after their trauma of being threatened with their own knife

From the article, the judge speaks thusly....

"This young man caused a very unpleasant public affray, which might have led to very much more serious violence. But positive good character, such as this young man displayed until this incident, is real mitigation.

The student didn't cause anything... the three scum were the cause when they robbing him and assaulted him. Have these three scum been arrested, charged and convicted? I bet they were witnesses in the students case, and have all had a big hug and a pat on the head.

FFS

Originally Posted by FARMBOY

Iolis - please could you advise, according to the DT article the defendent picked up a knife that had been dropped by one of his attackers. Now I thought (and this is a barrack room gossip) that if you pick up a weopon dropped by someone who attacks you and then utilise that weopon the law considers it to be self defence as you were not the original carrier. Or am I talking B*llocks?

I don't think this is right as stated - you still can only employ "reasonable force" - if you drop the knife and scarper, I can't pick it up, chase you and stab you with it - you are no longer a threat to me.

There is a difference between the father's statement

If you are attacked in the street and you try to defend yourself it is not a crime. I think anyone would do the same.

and what happened here. Hence the conviction stands and the sentence was reduced and suspended taking in to account the mitigating circumstances, the provocation and the good character.

When it comes down to it - he is still guilty both charges.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

From the article, the judge speaks thusly....

"This young man caused a very unpleasant public affray, which might have led to very much more serious violence. But positive good character, such as this young man displayed until this incident, is real mitigation.

The student didn't cause anything... the three scum were the cause when they robbing him and assaulted him. Have these three scum been arrested, charged and convicted? I bet they were witnesses in the students case, and have all had a big hug and a pat on the head.

FFS

Those prosecuting the student-a victim of a violent crime,whilst no doubt making every possible excuse for the muggers,were they ever caught,as they would never be as this requires too much effort and may be dangerous,are the result of the appointment of Marxist gaurdianistas into the so-called Ministry of Justice.

Justice in Britain is a bad joke.

Originally Posted by Idrach

Originally Posted by FARMBOY

Iolis - please could you advise, according to the DT article the defendent picked up a knife that had been dropped by one of his attackers. Now I thought (and this is a barrack room gossip) that if you pick up a weopon dropped by someone who attacks you and then utilise that weopon the law considers it to be self defence as you were not the original carrier. Or am I talking B*llocks?

I don't think this is right as stated - you still can only employ "reasonable force" - if you drop the knife and scarper, I can't pick it up, chase you and stab you with it - you are no longer a threat to me.

There is a difference between the father's statement

If you are attacked in the street and you try to defend yourself it is not a crime. I think anyone would do the same.

and what happened here. Hence the conviction stands and the sentence was reduced and suspended taking in to account the mitigating circumstances, the provocation and the good character.

When it comes down to it - he is still guilty both charges.

I see the distinction. So if attacker drops knife and is still a threat and you pick up said knife and use - there is a case of self defence. Once the attacker has fled you could only legally pursue if you drop the knife.

I hate to say it but I can see the sense in that, however when the red mist comes down...there but for the grace of God etc.

Originally Posted by FARMBOY

I see the distinction. So if attacker drops knife and is still a threat and you pick up said knife and use - there is a case of self defence. Once the attacker has fled you could only legally pursue if you drop the knife.

I hate to say it but I can see the sense in that, however when the red mist comes down...there but for the grace of God etc.

Hmm, I'm not sure about actually having to drop the knife for the pursuit (you could claim the lawful excuse for carrying it of having seized it as evidence) - but threatening them with it (as in this case) is a no-no and waving it around in public also a different one. But I wouldn't want to have the CPS or the Fiscal deciding whether or not to prosecute me on those grounds.

Remember when you used to have the different versions of the armed sentry cards for England and Scotland? 'Twas because of subtle differences in the way "reasonable force" was interpreted under the two legal systems. I think these have now been brought together with HRA98 - but I haven't been an armed sentry in the UK for years now ...

Originally Posted by Le_addeur_noir

Those prosecuting the student-a victim of a violent crime,whilst no doubt making every possible excuse for the muggers,were they ever caught,as they would never be as this requires too much effort and may be dangerous,are the result of the appointment of Marxist gaurdianistas into the so-called Ministry of Justice.

Yes, I'd very much like to see what the three scum were done for - that should have included the knife offence, for a start. But I doubt they were even looked for or, if they were, not very hard - there was an easy conviction standing right there ready to plead guilty.

CPS guidance, if you are interested enough is here.

Or maybe the law is now out of touch with society in Britain today due to OVER RAPID progression in Britain's ideology thought and belief in recent years.