Student jailed for confronting muggers

#2
sounds about right for this country.

the problem is, all laws are subject to common sense... but common sense isn't common anymore.

thus, the law says he chased somebody with a knife has to go to jail. fair enough. if somebody applied a bit of common sense to the law (as you're supposed to), they'd see he just wanted his phone back.
 
#3
God Help Us All!
 
#4
These decisions come about because of Daily Mail reading handwringers who demand zero tolerance in all cases. Ironically, they're the same people who kick off over stories like this.
 
#5
eodmatt said:
God Help Us All!
I know. Sympathy for students?

What's the world coming to?
 
#6
If this report is true, then I'm surprised the CPS took it to court. I think most people would have acted the same in this situation, and it's not as if anybody was hurt.

It would be a different situation if he had actually stabbed somebody - it's almost like the message being sent out is in all situations the victim must accept what has happened, and let the police deal with it. That's if they [the police] can be bothered to leave their Mars Bars and Daily Sports for a while, to do some policing.
 
#7
All Aboarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd!!!!
 
#8
mistersoft said:
eodmatt said:
God Help Us All!
I know. Sympathy for students?

What's the world coming to?
Pity there were no ambulance chasing lawyers around at the time to sue the man on behalf of the robbers, for stress, hurt feelings and anything else that springs to mind. Students? I hate them. I were one once :D
 
#9
eodmatt said:
mistersoft said:
eodmatt said:
God Help Us All!
I know. Sympathy for students?

What's the world coming to?
Pity there were no ambulance chasing lawyers around at the time to sue the man on behalf of the robbers, for stress, hurt feelings and anything else that springs to mind. Students? I hate them. I were one once :D
:lol: So was I though usually only when the bar was open.
 
#10
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.
 
#12
What is the this country coming too?
Muggers than can't even mug properly! :x


When I were a Lad we could mug with one hand behind us backs. Zzzzzzzzz :sleepy:
 
#13
CC_TA said:
Why didn't the soap dodging tax sapping student stab said thieving kunt? Poof!
Because he's a business studies student. Their normal method of getting rid of someone, is beating them to death with a rolled up copy of the Financial Times.
 
#14
mistersoft said:
CC_TA said:
Why didn't the soap dodging tax sapping student stab said thieving kunt? Poof!
Because he's a business studies student. Their normal method of getting rid of someone, is beating them to death with a rolled up copy of the Financial Times.
I thought the usual way for someone doing a degree with "studies" in the title to see someone off was to say "thank you for eating in McDonalds, have a nice day" ;)
 
#15
CaptainPlume said:
mistersoft said:
CC_TA said:
Why didn't the soap dodging tax sapping student stab said thieving kunt? Poof!
Because he's a business studies student. Their normal method of getting rid of someone, is beating them to death with a rolled up copy of the Financial Times.
I thought the usual way for someone doing a degree with "studies" in the title to see someone off was to say "thank you for eating in McDonalds, have a nice day" ;)
:lol:

Maybe he'd had a bad day flipping burgers which is why he reacted as he did.
 
#16
Iolis said:
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.
 
#17
Markintime said:
Iolis said:
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. :x

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" :)
 
#18
Iolis said:
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?
 
#19
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
 
#20
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 :roll:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top