He is ordered to attend a drug rehabilitation clinic, which he will no doubt do 2 sessions the b*gger off.
Why is he not jailed "At her Majesty's pleasure" until he is proven to be off the drugs. At least that way, there is a chance that some of the sentence will be carried out. If the Police cannot keep an eye on people who break parole conditions etc, are they really going to bother with this scrote.
No point naming and shaming people who don't understand shame!
It is almost as if courts now regard people who choose to take drugs as not responsible for their actions!
Approximate guess at costs: Â£800 to the RBL, Â£800 to legal aid, Â£500 to his few attendances at drug referral, Â£500 police time, at a guess Â£2600 spent on a scumbag who will probably be back in court next week and the week after!
Would appear that the magistrate / sentencing powers indicate that there is absolutely no deterrent to others whatsoever.
Can't tell from the online version, as there is no mention of previous convictions. If there was a string of previous, it really does make one wonder what you have to do before the punishment really does fit the crime?
For example, what punishment would be handed out, if someone with no previous were to slot the Home Secretary I wonder?
Good idea, pay the money back. Problem is, this scrote is probably (almost certainly) unemployed and on benefits. Ergo, we give him the money to pay back.
I like the idea of a "Majesty's pleasure" style sentence with release, on licence, when clear of drugs.