Your actions were justified, but youre still going down son

BrunoNoMedals

LE
Kit Reviewer
#1
Teacher convicted of manslaughter


A primary school teacher who struck his son-in-law with a cricket bat as he tried to defend his daughter has been jailed for manslaughter.

Kenneth Bassarath responded to a call from daughter Celosia as she cowered in a bedroom, the Old Bailey heard.

He hit her husband Sergio Mendes, 32, causing brain injuries from which he died three days later on 22 March.

Bassarath, 64, of Hackney, east London, was cleared of murder but convicted of manslaughter and jailed for 30 months.

It is clear that you were much affected by what you felt concerning your daughter - and with justification

Judge Gerald Gordon

He was called by his daughter who had fled from her husband in fear and had locked herself in a room with her two young sons after the violent row had begun.

She said her husband had tried to pull her down the stairs as she had fled from him.

The court heard he ranted and swore and banged at the door of the bedroom she had locked herself in.

Jurors heard Bassarath believed his son-in-law was "unstable". When he arrived outside the property in Hackney he wrenched the bat from Mendes's hand.

After knocking Mr Mendes to the ground, Bassarath stood above him and was heard by a neighbour to say: "He's beaten my daughter. Call the police."

'Devoted' man

But when officers arrived it was he who was arrested.

Judge Gerald Gordon agreed Bassarath was of "impeccable character", but dismissed a call by David Fisher QC, defending, that Bassarath should be given a suspended sentence.

Mr Fisher said: "He has devoted his life to his family, to the teaching profession and to the church.

"What actual benefit is there going to be to anybody in this case in sentencing him to a lengthy sentence of imprisonment?"

But the judge said he had to take into account the fact Mr Mendes's parents had lost a son and that his children had lost a father as a result of what had happened.

He added: "It is clear that you were much affected by what you felt concerning your daughter - and with justification."
So the bloke gets to his daughter's house to find her locked in a bedroom with the kids, while the husband goes postal with a cricket bat. Daddy, over 30 years the lads senior, gets the bat off him and gives him a swift crack to the swede. At the first opportunity he gets the plod involved.

Obviously they nick him - he's just killed the bloke - but while the judge AGREES that the guy's actions were justified, that he's no risk and an all-round top bloke, he still sends him down.

Surely, if the actions were justified and the old geezer isn't a threat, that constitutes grounds for release?!
 
W

wevers

Guest
#4
this bloke can't have been that unstable and violent if he was put on his arse by a 64 year old teacher.....
 

BrunoNoMedals

LE
Kit Reviewer
#5
wevers said:
this bloke can't have been that unstable and violent if he was put on his arse by a 64 year old teacher.....
But it would have been feasible with a bloke who had all his faculties? Please...
 
#6
64 is hardly zimmer frame territory, Chuck Norris is 68 :D
 
W

wevers

Guest
#7
who knows???? saying that I'm sure I wouldn't want to mess with Arnie Schartrzzzawhatever who has to be getting on a bit..........Fair point.




Taxi......
 
#8
Arnie is 61 and Chuck Norris would kick his ass :)
 
#9
Question is, was there any need to hit him with the bat when he took it of him? If the answer is 'no' he's guilty. Sorry for the fella, but that's the law for you.
 
#10
From the reports the problem seems to be that the chap who was killed had already been disarmed and was on the ground. The report does not suggest that the fatal blow was either defensive or to stop a further assault, nor has there been any suggestion that the mans skull was abnormally week. Either it was a very poor defence or the guy was deemed legally to have over reacted.
 
#11
the judge did say his actions were justified.
 
#12
unfortunatly, even if the answer is yes, he's guilty.

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion", under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.

Sometimes, the law just sucks.
 
#14
devilish said:
the judge did say his actions were justified.
This is exactly my point. No mention is made of the level of violence or the defence story, granted, but if his reaction was excessive (beyond "reasonable force") then surely the judge wouldn't have agreed with the justification.

Essentially the judge is telling him he was in the right, but sentencing him for being in the wrong. If the summation had made mention of excessive force, or another reason why his actions were uncalled for, then I could have understood the sentence a little better.
 
#15
WalterWarry said:
jt9563 said:
Arnie is 61 and Chuck Norris would kick his ass :)
Google "find Chuck Norris" and hit the "I feel lucky button".
Old ones are the best aint they. ALL HAIL CHUCK!
 
#17
...and to add to his problems, he'll not only lose his job, but he'll be bound to get banned from teaching again (in a state school at least) by the General Teaching Council. He'll be unable to ever work with children again in any capacity. At least he is of an age to retire.
 
#18
Ridiculous. If his actions were justified, he should get off, just like if a copper shot someone and his actions were found to be justified. Sometimes lethal force is necessary to protect your life or the lives of others.
 
#19
Random_Task said:
devilish said:
the judge did say his actions were justified.
But took exception to him shouting "Howzat!" after he'd clobbered him with the cricket bat.
Cnut! My nose is already dribbling like a tap, and reading that almost sent a spurt down my chin!






abeaumont: Is his pension not in trouble, should he be sacked on these grounds? That would be one hell of an insult.
 
#20
According to the posted quote:

"It is clear that you were much affected by what you felt concerning your daughter - and with justification."

He did NOT say the actions were justified, he said that there was justification for his concern.

That's different, a lot different.

Had the judge ruled that it was a proper use of force, the bloke would have walked, as it is, the judge merely said that he understood the bloke's feelings of concern.
 

Latest Threads

Top