Sycamore Gap tree felled | Man in his 60s also arrested

west didsblue said:
I agree with GDM.

It was obviously going to be a much bigger sentence than your average case of criminal damage because of the upset they knew they’d cause to many people, the notoriety they sought and the fact they wilfully destroyed an internationally recognised feature of the landscape.

Agree that violence against other people should generally be treated much more harshly than criminal damage.
Click to expand...

Well then if we are giving 4 -5 yrs for criminal damage then we would have to give what? 7-8 yrs for beating someone up. Maybe we should get rid of this 40% bollocks.

Just found out they would of got less if they pleaded guilty. They do seem thick as pigs shit.
 
hilts said:
Well then if we are giving 4 -5 yrs for criminal damage then we would have to give what? 7-8 yrs for beating someone up. Maybe we should get rid of this 40% bollocks.

Just found out they would have got less if they pleaded guilty. They do seem thick as pigs shit.
Click to expand...
Most criminal damage wouldn’t end up with a prison sentence but this was rightly considered exceptional for the reasons I said earlier and also for the fact they were gloating about other people being arrested for it. Pair of cunts anyway.
 
west didsblue said:
Most criminal damage wouldn’t end up with a prison sentence but this was rightly considered exceptional for the reasons I said earlier and also for the fact they were gloating about other people being arrested for it. Pair of cunts anyway.
Click to expand...

They are but my view is why spend all that money locking up two fucknuts for years for chopping down a tree. We are struggling for room in prisons I think mainly only dangerous, violent and abusive people should be getting prison time in the first instance
 
hilts said:
They are but my view is why spend all that money locking up two fucknuts for years for chopping down a tree. We are struggling for room in prisons I think mainly only dangerous, violent and abusive people should be getting prison time in the first instance
Click to expand...
Criminal justice is political. I think the result here is about right.

The fact we can't afford to lock up all our criminals is a separate matter.
 
Why wasn’t one of them charged with drink driving as well? Or maybe one drove there and the other drove back? But it was stated as part of their defence that they were drunk and have driven for a long way so why weren’t they charged with that as well?
 
Eccles Blue said:
Why wasn’t one of them charged with drink driving as well? Or maybe one drove there and the other drove back? But it was stated as part of their defence that they were drunk and have driven for a long way so why weren’t they charged with that as well?
Click to expand...
Evidence of intoxication is required. Just saying it is very thin.
 
Good. They deserved more. Damaging Hadrian's Wall with a mindless act like this shows the level of stupidity that a lot of people in this country are heading towards. What were they thinking? Let's go and chop that fucking tree down...you know, the one in that film that everyone wants a picture of. That will be fun. Aimless buffoons the pair of them.
 
hilts said:
What's your opinion fella, not from a professional point of view as it will have been within the guidelines obviously.
Click to expand...
Not sure there are any sentencing guidelines for criminal damage, although there will be precedents via previous sentences upheld (or reduced) by the court of appeal, and the ten year maximum sentence for this offence will have been set for unusual cases such as these, within what is normally a pretty trivial offence.

I’ve posted earlier in the thread about my thoughts on this but happy to repeat, although not verbatim.

Ultimately a crime is an antisocial act. It’s something someone usually decides to carry out for their own selfish reasons to the detriment of others. And that’s why we have laws and punishment for offenders. And within that, lie the twin totemic pillars of culpability and harm to others that must shape what sentence people deserve and receive, within the statutory limit.

This was such a mindless act, without any discernible benefit to the individuals who committed it other than to cause upset in others, who treasured what was destroyed greatly (for various reasons) that this can only be met with a severe sentence, because it was so gratuitous and antisocial that to fail to do so would offend a sense of justice and ignore a need to deter others from acting in this way in the future.

Personally speaking if they’d done this for financial gain then I’d see it as less, not more serious.

As I expect you’ll have gathered over the years on here, I’m not a hang ‘em and flog ‘em merchant , and i certainly don’t feel tougher sentencing necessarily provides the panacea that others plainly do across to piece, but in this instance I felt a message needed to be sent out in the public interest and as a punishment to these two utterly selfish cunts.

I wanted the judge to give them a good kicking and she duly obliged.
 
hilts said:
Well then if we are giving 4 -5 yrs for criminal damage then we would have to give what? 7-8 yrs for beating someone up. Maybe we should get rid of this 40% bollocks.

Just found out they would have got less if they pleaded guilty. They do seem thick as pigs shit.
Click to expand...
I said previously that the judge may add on a bit (without saying so) for them both running such preposterous defences especially given the expense and profile of the trial. They should only really get a third off for pleading guilty at the first opportunity but I think with cases like this the maths on that can be a bit more flexible.

The comparison with assault isn’t really relevant because this is such an unusual case. It would be far more productive to compare it to the sentence that people normally get for criminal damage which is a small fine. Custodial sentences are unusual but sometimes necessary for such offending, especially when the damage affects victims emotionally, cannot be remedied and/or compensated for financially, and was caused intentionally (rather than recklessly).
 
Eccles Blue said:
Why wasn’t one of them charged with drink driving as well? Or maybe one drove there and the other drove back? But it was stated as part of their defence that they were drunk and have driven for a long way so why weren’t they charged with that as well?
Click to expand...
Because no matter how pissed he was, there is no verifiable evidence he was over the drink drive limit. Someone can drink a bottle of whisky and be under the limit and others be over after a glass of wine. The limit is set by law based on the reading in the breath/blood and there is no evidence of any alcohol in either. Unlike North Korea, criminal convictions can only be supported by worthwhile evidence.

The limitations of this particular law, is why refusing to give a specimen is a separate offence but by the time he’d been pulled there was no point in requiring him to give one.
 
Coatigan said:
And the rest?
Click to expand...
On licence, usually with restrictions including reporting to the probation service and (more infrequently) wearing a tag.

And automatic recall to prison if they step out of line.

And if they commit another offence whilst on licence that’s an aggravating feature for the second offence, much like committing an offence whilst on bail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top