2 years for kidnap and attempted murder?

[diy]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tw ... 80261.html

I can't see how that sentence matched the crime. It seems very lenient for what appears to be kidnap and attempted murder. I wonder if two men would have been treated the same.

[atticus]

Have you found and read the judge's sentencing remarks. They tend to be a much more accurate record of what the judge said and the reasons he gave than excitable knee-jerk newspaper reports.

Of course the Attorney General may appeal the sentence.

[diy]

I'm not sure where i'd look

[atticus]

1. Fire up your search engine.

2. Type in the name of the defendant and "sentencing remarks"

[diy]

computer says no. maybe it takes a few days to get published

[atticus]

The point is this. Yes, the sentences appear light, if accurately reported. But the Judge will have given reasons for the sentences he imposed. A full report of those reasons may give a fuller understanding of the story of these individuals and their crime.

This is exactly the kind of thing that certain papers and certain MPs ask the Attorney General to review. He may bring an appeal against sentence. If he does, the Court of Appeal will review the sentences. It may increase them.

Or it may be that the AG and/or the CA considers that the judge's reasons are sound. We cannot say. We have not seen them.

[Smouldering Stoat]

It is not unduly lenient. It is not lenient at all.

This is not a case of kidnap and attempted murder. The defendants were convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The sentencing range for Category 1 of this offence is 1 to 3 years custody, so 2 years 4 months is firmly towards the upper end of what might have been imposed.

There is nothing in the news report to support the proposition that this is a case of attempted murder. For a conviction for attempted murder the prosecution must prove an actual intention to kill (as opposed to murder, where it is sufficient to prove an intent to cause grievous bodily harm) and that the defendants had gone beyond mere preparation in actually attempting to kill. As for kidnap, an essential element of that offence is the "taking or carrying away" of the victim. That is not the case here.

[diy]

So you don't think pounding someone's head with a hammer saying "I want to kill him" or telling someone "today you are going to die" is evidence of someone planning to kill another?

I appreciate we only have the news article for "facts"

[atticus]

I appreciate we only have the news article for "facts"

In which case please show that you do in fact understand that point by the rest of what you write. Remind me how much of the evidence you heard, and how much you know of what the judge said. Or do you prefer to jerk your knee?

[Smouldering Stoat]

What I think is neither here nor there. The court is in possession of the facts. One of those facts is that the defendants have not been convicted of attempted murder. They have been convicted of a much lesser (but still serious) offence.

It is not necessarily the case that a defendant who says that the wants to kill his victim actually holds that intention. The first criminal trial I ever watched was one at the Old Bailey at which D was acquitted under very much those circumstances. "What other intention can there be," the prosecutor put to the jury in his closing argument "but to kill?" To which defence council ran through a list of other intents. To frighten. To intimidate the victim into compliance or silence. To express rage or frustration. To impress a bystander.