Read on Twitter
Lots of posts about the 2 year sentence given for stabbing an officer (6 months consecutive for having a bladed article). Here's my take.
First, we don't know all the facts. That's very important. There are almost certainly things we don't know about the case.
First, we don't know all the facts. That's very important. There are almost certainly things we don't know about the case.
The main complaints seem to be why such a short sentence (often predictably coupled with abuse of the judge etc) and why s20 rather than 18?
First, why 2 years?
Well, for this offence (wounding, without the intent to cause really serious injury), the maximum is 5 years.
First, why 2 years?
Well, for this offence (wounding, without the intent to cause really serious injury), the maximum is 5 years.
The judge has to follow sentencing guidelines. This involves deciding on harm and culpability.
In this case, the harm would be lesser: the injury appears not to have been very serious *by the standards of GBH*, which encompasses all non-fatal injuries.
In this case, the harm would be lesser: the injury appears not to have been very serious *by the standards of GBH*, which encompasses all non-fatal injuries.
Culpability is plainly high: use of a weapon
That puts it in category 2. Starting point 18 months, range 1-3 years.
It's made more serious because there victim was a police officer.
That puts it in category 2. Starting point 18 months, range 1-3 years.
It's made more serious because there victim was a police officer.
Then we may well need to reduce for guilty plea. I've not seen anything about the plea but if we assume he pleaded guilty early then he must get 1/3 off.
So the judge may well have gone to the very top of the available range and then given credit. Which is all he/she can do.
So the judge may well have gone to the very top of the available range and then given credit. Which is all he/she can do.
On the reports I've seen, therefore, the sentence *may well* be spot on for the offence charged.
So why was it a s20 rather than s18, which is wounding with intent to cause really serious injury?
So why was it a s20 rather than s18, which is wounding with intent to cause really serious injury?
The first thing to spring to mind is mental health. This is speculation, but so is assuming its absence, since we are told nothing. It is not that unusual to find cases where the defendant's mental health affects his ability to form an intent. I had one yesterday.
The other obvious reason (and again, there may be more that we don't know from the reports) is the type of weapon. A Stanley knife.
That's all we are told about it. Now, looking at the Stanley knifed in my tool bag, the effective blade length for stabbing is under an inch.
That's all we are told about it. Now, looking at the Stanley knifed in my tool bag, the effective blade length for stabbing is under an inch.
If I wanted to cause somebody serious harm with one of these, I'd slash with it, personally. It's not really a stabbing kind of blade.
The officer didn't notice he'd been stabbed until a bit later. That, of course, can happen to them most serious injuries (I've met a soldier who lost both legs and didn't really feel much pain at the time). But it's a factor.
To prove s18 (wounding with intent, carrying a maximum of life imprisonment), the prosecution have to prove intention to cause really serious injury.
There may well have been a question over whether a jury could be sure that stabbing with what may well have been a very short blade shows such an intention.
In which case s20 is the inevitable result, leading to the 2 year sentence given (plus 6 months for having the knife).
In which case s20 is the inevitable result, leading to the 2 year sentence given (plus 6 months for having the knife).
On the face of it, it is entirely plausible that the police, CPS and judge were simply all doing their jobs correctly.
The problem, if there is one, is with the law and the guidelines, not the individuals in this case.
The problem, if there is one, is with the law and the guidelines, not the individuals in this case.
My personal view is that we need to revisit offences against the person.
Personally, I think that:
1. assaulting somebody with a bladed article should be a quite separate offence;
Personally, I think that:
1. assaulting somebody with a bladed article should be a quite separate offence;
2. we should look at getting rid of the sharp (no pun intended) distinction between the levels of injury and intention, allowing more of a sliding scale of sentence based on the nuances of the case.
This tweet has gone on rather longer than I planned...
I should perhaps add, although I hope it's obvious, that this does not mean that I don't have sympathy for this officer and the police generally.
I want stronger laws to protect them. But until we have such less, I want the current ones applied.
I want stronger laws to protect them. But until we have such less, I want the current ones applied.
