An interesting exchange in the comments section of the Sentinel's website, by people who are obviously a bit better informed than most.
But obviously they're not in agreement either, but what's surely clear is that the police and prosecutors could have taken more stringent action if they'd been so minded. Don't know if a letter of apology would have been appropriate even for a teenage first offender, but the perp here hardly sounds like a teenager, and I'd guess he isn't a first offender either.
Suspect this thing resurfacing again will just strengthen his Billy Big Bollocks credentials with his mates, and he'll be bragging about how he abused and threatened a taxi driver, and got away with it even though it's been plastered all over the media. (Think it's in the nationals as well.)
Quote:
On the face of it this offender wasn't punished. However, if he'd been charged with racially aggravated threatening behaviour, which is the only offence he committed, he would probably only have been given a conditional discharge or a small fine anyway. A racist being forced to write a letter of apology, to a man who the offender believed to be beneath himself, would have been unpalatable for him. Despite the obvious public outrage, this offender would not have been gaoled and no punishment would have been considered adequate. It's also worth considering that the victim also has to agree to the imposition of a Community Resolution so the taxi driver must have agreed to it otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
Quote:
Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s31(1)(a), if he had been found guilty at magistrates court he could have been sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and if found guilty at crown court he would have faced up to 2 years imprisonment.
One wonder whether this taxi driver was fearful of retribution and loss of business or just the better party in the sorry affair.
The outrage at the leniency of the "punishment" seems not so different to the outrage that you and others have expressed when thieves, drunks and petty drug dealers are given sentences perfectly in line with guidelines.
The worst aspect of this issue is the succour and encouragement it will give to racist idiots. In the same way, I would humbly suggest that the faux moral outrage and hysterical calls for punishment wholly disproportionate to the offences committed which pepper this site do nothing but create a climate in which violence and hate are normalised. Just my opinion.
Quote:
I agree with you Phil, but you've Googled the wrong legislation I think. I think he'd have been charged under Sec 4a of the POA. In any event, when have you ever seen anyone get the maximum sentence? If he entered a guilty plea the maximum sentence isn't even possible. I agree that the punishment doesn't appear to fit the crime, but the courts wouldn't have satisfied your lust for revenge; they never do. I still maintain that forcing a bigot to apologise to his victim, someone he feels superior to, will really mess with his head!
Quote:
Doc, point taken about the maximum being unlikely. I don't think prison works, either as retribution, rehabilitation or punishment, and I doubt a custodial sentence would have served justice in any meaningful way, so I'm not overly concerned at the leniency of his treatment, other than the collateral damage it does as a signal to the wider community. I think you're right that having to apologise is probably for more difficult for him to deal with than any other measure a court might have applied.
Quote:
Just to add, the CDA 1988 s31 and following sections was the legislation that added the element of racial/religious aggravation to the offence under s4 of the Public Order Act. The CPS would also have to consider whether s145 of the CJA 2003 is engaged - and yes I had to look it up because criminal law is not my area of expertise.
Login
Register
FAQ
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
