Yet more madness from our legal system! Violent coward thug Ian Houillebecq let off

yorkie · 10 Sep 2013

Megi Rychlikova in York Press said:
Champion kickboxer Ian Houillebecq terrorised York taxi driver

A DRUNK kickboxer forced a taxi driver into a terrifying journey through York then chased him into his house and stole his car keys.

Ian Paul Houillebecq, 23, then made off in the victim’s taxi and crashed nearby before being tasered by armed police, a court heard.

But today Houillebecq, who already had 18 convictions, remains a free man –after a judge said he had the “potential for greatness”.

The head of his sporting organisation said he was unlikely to have his licence suspended because he is a potential medal winner.

The taxi driver had just finished a night shift and was preparing to drive home when Houillebecq barged into the back of his cab at 5.30am in Blake Street, York, on July 28.

Houillebecq had been drunk and aggressive as he forced him to drive through York by banging the back of the driver’s seat and calling him a racist name, said Howard Shaw, prosecuting.

The driver headed home and tried to barricade himself in his house, but Houillebecq forced his way in and stole his taxi’s keys.

Despite having been previously banned from driving for five years, Houillebecq drove off in the car and crashed it so badly it had to be written off.

Police turned out an armed response team and Houillebecq was eventually arrested after officers blocked the car’s path and tasered him, said Mr Shaw. He had a bag of what police suspected was cocaine on him.

The judge said the kickboxer had “no doubt frightened the living daylights out of the complainant”. But Houillebecq had “the potential for greatness” in a kickboxing career and many supporters, he said.

He suspended a 21-month prison sentence for two years.

Both magistrates and a senior jugde had remanded Houillebecq in custody before the sentencing hearing. He had 18 previous convictions including ones for violence, dishonesty and driving offences and had previously assaulted a police officer with intent to resist arrest, the court heard.

Houillebecq, of Seventh Avenue, Tang Hall, pleaded guilty to racial assault, burglary, aggravated car snatching and driving whilst disqualified, all committed in the early hours of July 28. The judge told him to pay £500 compensation to the taxi driver for the “anguish and emotional trauma” he had suffered.

The taxi driver had been left in “total shock” by his ordeal, prosecutor Howard Shaw said. He had not been able to work for three weeks because of the damage to his taxi and had had to take out a loan of £13,000 for a new car.

* Houillebecq’s five-year driving ban was initiated in 2008 for aggravated car snatching when a court also ordered that he could not drive legally at the end of it until he passes an extended driving test. In the same year he was convicted of drink driving and served a detention and training order. He has committed offences subsequently.

Absolutely sickening!

What sort of message does this send?

In this country, we have disgustingly lenient sentences for violent criminals.

And now, to cap it all off, if you have the "potential for greatness" at a sport, you can get away with many acts of violence and be constantly let off. What does he do to get into jail? Murder someone? Even then, no doubt he'd not be locked up for that long, and spineless shameful numpties like Peter Edwards would be welcoming him back as soon as he was let out.

If the Great Britain team is about allowing violent criminals to represent us at any cost, then quite frankly I don't want any part in supporting them. What happened to role models setting a good example? It's now a case of, if you are good at a sport, you can behave however you like because Great Britain wants to win at any cost! I find that shameful.

Shame on you, Ian Houillebecq, shame on you Peter Edwards, and shame on the judge (who should be sacked).

RailUK Forums

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

yorkie said:
Absolutely sickening!

What sort of message does this send?

In this country, we have disgustingly lenient sentences for violent criminals.

And now, to cap it all off, if you have the "potential for greatness" at a sport, you can get away with many acts of violence and be constantly let off. What does he do to get into jail? Murder someone? Even then, no doubt he'd not be locked up for that long, and spineless shameful numpties like Peter Edwards would be welcoming him back as soon as he was let out.

If the Great Britain team is about allowing violent criminals to represent us at any cost, then quite frankly I don't want any part in supporting them. What happened to role models setting a good example? It's now a case of, if you are good at a sport, you can behave however you like because Great Britain wants to win at any cost! I find that shameful.

Shame on you, Ian Houillebecq, shame on you Peter Edwards, and shame on the judge (who should be sacked).

The sentence has been suspended, not cancelled. He will still serve time. This sends no message at all to most criminals, as most of them aren't potentially champion kickboxers (or champion anythings, for that matter).

In fact, I'm inclined to say that this is better, because it means that it's less likely to totally ruin your career. I've always agreed that someone should serve their time, but don't agree that that often means returning to the bottom rung of the ladder; that's not part of the sentence, and shouldn't be.

455driver · 10 Sep 2013

Why are you surprised!

That sums up the "legal" system in this country perfectly.

Oswyntail · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
.. I've always agreed that someone should serve their time, but don't agree that that often means returning to the bottom rung of the ladder; that's not part of the sentence, and shouldn't be.

Why not?
Everything about that sentence was wrong, and I hope someone orders a review. A suspended sentence does not mean he does time - it is a mild slap on the wrist for a thug who has proved before that he is not mature enough to reform. Most sports teams, especially international ones, have a code of expected conduct that does not include possession of cocaine and violent robbery. At present this man appears to have absolutely nothing to offer society except a propensity for violence.

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

Oswyntail said:
Why not?
Everything about that sentence was wrong, and I hope someone orders a review. A suspended sentence does not mean he does time - it is a mild slap on the wrist for a thug who has proved before that he is not mature enough to reform. Most sports teams, especially international ones, have a code of expected conduct that does not include possession of cocaine and violent robbery. At present this man appears to have absolutely nothing to offer society except a propensity for violence.

He's suspended it for two years - depending on how he acts within that period determines what the judge wants to do with it. I highly doubt the judge will just throw it out at the end of the probation period in light of his previous convictions. It is not the same as him being given a slap on the wrist.

And I don't believe you should have your career ruined because that's not part of the legal system, and is something that punishes those who are successful more than those who aren't. Someone on the dole is punished far less by a prison sentence than a highly successful doctor, for example. For someone in a sport such as this, the damage is likely permanent.

DarloRich · 10 Sep 2013

I was going to write a long response explaining things but there is no point.

It is much easier just to sound off about how awful things are without having any understanding of how the system works

GB · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
And I don't believe you should have your career ruined because that's not part of the legal system, and is something that punishes those who are successful more than those who aren't. Someone on the dole is punished far less by a prison sentence than a highly successful doctor, for example. For someone in a sport such as this, the damage is likely permanent.

Make your choice, live with the consequences. If a person has such a "previous" as this bloke has and with the severity of the crime he is charged with, ones job status should not be a factor.

yorkie · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
The sentence has been suspended, not cancelled. He will still serve time.

No he won't. He'll be good for that period of time, and then go back to his usual ways.

TheKnightWho said:
This sends no message at all to most criminals, as most of them aren't potentially champion kickboxers (or champion anythings, for that matter).

It sends the message that if you're good at a sport, you can get away with racist, violent acts.

TheKnightWho said:
In fact, I'm inclined to say that this is better, because it means that it's less likely to totally ruin your career.

Why should his career not be in ruins?

I've seen careers ruined for far, far less (including false accusations). It would ruin most careers, but GB are so desperate for success, they'll have even the most violent of racist thugs represent us in their desperate lust for silverware!

TheKnightWho said:
I've always agreed that someone should serve their time, but don't agree that that often means returning to the bottom rung of the ladder; that's not part of the sentence, and shouldn't be.

He is not going to serve any time, despite a huge string of offences.

Trog · 10 Sep 2013

With a record like his a suspended sentence should involve his feet being 6" off the floor.

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

GB said:
Make your choice, live with the consequences. If a person has such a "previous" as this bloke has and with the severity of the crime he is charged with, ones job status should not be a factor.

Because it's a considerably worse punishment for those who have higher status jobs. Think about it.

This is akin to saying it's unfair that we all don't pay the same level of tax, because that would be treating us all the same unlike the current system.

yorkie said:
No he won't. He'll be good for that period of time, and then go back to his usual ways.

It sends the message that if you're good at a sport, you can get away with racist, violent acts.

Why should his career not be in ruins?

He is not going to serve any time, despite a huge string of offences.

Do you have any evidence for any of this? No. You're just moaning and being pessimistic. You've got a single article to go on that reveals essentially nothing.

yorkie · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
Because it's a considerably worse punishment for those who have higher status jobs. Think about it.

I have thought about it, and I have reached the right conclusion. His career should be in ruins. I note you have ignored the fact that this person has the absolute cheek and pomposity to 'represent' Great Britain. What sort of message does that send out to young people? Think about it.

TheKnightWho said:
Because
This is akin to saying it's unfair that we all don't pay the same level of tax, because that would be treating us all the same unlike the current system.

I disagree with that analogy.

TheKnightWho said:
Because
Do you have any evidence for any of this? No. You're just moaning and being pessimistic. You've got a single article to go on that reveals essentially nothing.

Err, right, ok :lol:

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

yorkie said:
I have thought about it, and I have reached the right conclusion. His career should be in ruins. I note you have ignored the fact that this person has the absolute cheek and pomposity to 'represent' Great Britain. What sort of message does that send out to young people? Think about it.

I disagree with that analogy.

Err, right, ok

"You're wrong and I'm right because I say so." Alright then. Care to actually say why you disagree?

And no - I don't think he should represent GB in anything.

HST Power · 10 Sep 2013

Why is it so hard to grasp that if you do the crime you should do the time? So what if his career gets ruined? He got drunk, terrorised a driver and a he had cocaine to boot. If did the same, I wouldn't expect a court to take pity because I have an exciting and glamorous future ahead of me. We've all been told we've got 'potential for greatness', that's effectively the motto of present times. I don't see how that can be justified.

DarloRich · 10 Sep 2013

HST Power said:
Why is it so hard to grasp that if you do the crime you should do the time? So what if his career gets ruined? He got drunk, terrorised a driver and a he had cocaine to boot. If did the same, I wouldn't expect a court to take pity because I have an exciting and glamorous future ahead of me. We've all been told we've got 'potential for greatness', that's effectively the motto of present times. I don't see how that can be justified.

and why is it so difficult for many to understand how the legal system works?

I always ask in these situations if (god forbid) you found yourself before the court charged with an offense whether or not you would ask your defense team to offer any mitigation on your behalf.

I have no problem with the disgust at the seemingly light sentence, because on the face of it it does seem light but we weren't in court, we aren't privy to how the evidence was collected, how it was presented or how the case was run by the legal teams. We also dont know how the sentencing guidelines were interpreted or implemented.

It is also worth noting that the criminal WAS convicted but was not convicted of a serious violent offense such as GBH which would have carried a greater sentence.

I do wish people understood what they were complaining about and how it comes about and direct their ire in the right direction!

yorkie · 10 Sep 2013

DarloRich said:
I do wish people understood what they were complaining about and how it comes about and direct their ire in the right direction!

Who should my ire be directed at?

I'm directing it at the legal system for failing, the judge (for his comments - if the system won't let him make the sentence more lenient then that's not his fault, but his comments were inappropriate), the violent racist piece of scum Ian Houillebecq himself, and the perpetrators behind his continual involvement in the GB team.

I'm probably missing a few individuals/organisations, but am happy to be enlightened...

NSEFAN · 10 Sep 2013

DarloRich said:
I do wish people understood what they were complaining about and how it comes about and direct their ire in the right direction!

Do we have any other sources of information about this case, besides the local press? If we believed every word that we read in the papers, we'd all believe this country is the worst place on Earth!

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

NSEFAN said:
Do we have any other sources of information about this case, besides the local press? If we believed every word that we read in the papers, we'd all believe this country is the worst place on Earth!

Exactly. But I got laughed at for this suggestion by our dear OP.

DarloRich · 10 Sep 2013

yorkie said:
Who should my ire be directed at?

I'm directing it at the legal system for failing, the judge (for his comments - if the system won't let him make the sentence more lenient then that's not his fault, but his comments were inappropriate), the violent racist piece of scum Ian Houillebecq himself, and the perpetrators behind his continual involvement in the GB team.

I'm probably missing a few individuals/organisations, but am happy to be enlightened...

What is the failing? That you dont like the result? What should have been the right sentence? Should mitigation not be allowed?

Why dont you try some research and gain some context before spouting off. Read the sentencing guidelines, understand the offenses and why the guidelines are the way they are. That way you may understand how the sentence comes to be passed. It is very difficult to debate in a rational manner when you present such emotional rhetoric.

By the way, would you ask your defense team to offer mitigation on your behalf if you were before the court?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Furthermore, you will note the article quoted doesn't tell us if he pleaded guilty. As i am sure you are aware the reduction in tariff for a guilty plea is usually one third of the total sentence.

Should a person pleading guilty not get a reduction in tariff, if only for saving the system the costs of prosecuting a case and the victims the ordeal of going into the witness box?

That said, I dont disagree that the sentence seems light.

yorksrob · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
Because it's a considerably worse punishment for those who have higher status jobs. Think about it.

By that logic, a bus driver who was convicted of dangerous driving, should have less chance of having his driving license taken away because it would have a "disproportionate"affect on his career.

Perhaps the judge should have spent more time ruminating on this individual's previous convictions rather than fantasising about gold medals.

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

yorksrob said:
By that logic, a bus driver who was convicted of dangerous driving, should have less chance of having his driving license taken away because it would have a "disproportionate"affect on his career.

Perhaps the judge should have spent more time ruminating on this individual's previous convictions rather than fantasising about gold medals.

The difference being that that has direct ramifications on his actual job, too.

If a medical doctor were convicted of murder through involuntary euthanasia, I would expect the sentencing to be different than if he committed manslaughter in a non-medical context, for example. One (but not the only) key difference being that he should have his medical practicing license revoked permanently.

yorksrob · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
The difference being that that has direct ramifications on his actual job, too.

If a medical doctor were convicted of murder through involuntary euthanasia, I would expect the sentencing to be different than if he committed manslaughter in a non-medical context, for example. One (but not the only) key difference being that he should have his medical practicing license revoked permanently.

Murder is a different offence from manslaughter anyway, so you would expect it to be treated differently.

However, if a doctor murders one of his patients (setting aside cases of assisted suicide), should he face a different sentence from a homeless person who commits the same offence ? Arguably the doctor has a lot more to lose in terms of career and reputation than the homeless person, yet I would argue that in the interests of justice being blind, this should have no impact on the sentence.

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

yorksrob said:
Murder is a different offence from manslaughter anyway, so you would expect it to be treated differently.

However, if a doctor murders one of his patients (setting aside cases of assisted suicide), should he face a different sentence from a homeless person who commits the same offence ? Arguably the doctor has a lot more to lose in terms of career and reputation than the homeless person, yet I would argue that in the interests of justice being blind, this should have no impact on the sentence.

But that's what I meant with involuntary euthanasia: it's a direct demonstration of lacking the ability to practise medicine responsibly.

To make things entirely fair, if he went out on the street, got drunk and killed someone by clocking them over the head with a bottle, then no, I don't think he should automatically lose his position as a doctor. I mean, if his behaviour is part of a pattern that shows a clear loss of ability to act as a doctor, then fine, but I don't think they should lose anything more than a homeless person who did the same thing would if it doesn't actually impact his ability to do his job. If it was just an out-of-the-blue incident with no evidence of being behaviour that's likely to reoccur, then they should simply serve the time and suffer nothing more.

This is why I brought up the tax analogy: circumstances do affect how we should treat people. Simply being exactly the same to everyone (i.e. giving everyone a flat tax/the same sentence) isn't necessarily the fairest system.

AndyLandy · 10 Sep 2013

NSEFAN said:
If we believed every word that we read in the papers, we'd all be anti-HS2

There. Fixed that for you.

yorksrob · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
But that's what I meant with involuntary euthanasia: it's a direct demonstration of lacking the ability to practise medicine responsibly.

To make things entirely fair, if he went out on the street, got drunk and killed someone by clocking them over the head with a bottle, then no, I don't think he should lose his position as a doctor. I mean, if his behaviour is part of a pattern that shows a clear loss of ability to act as a doctor, then fine, but I don't think they should lose anything more than a homeless person who did the same thing would. If it was just an out-of-the-blue incident with no evidence of being behaviour that's likely to reoccur, then they should simply serve the time and suffer nothing more.

But isn't whether he is struck off the medical register something for the keepers of the medical profession to decide rather than the judge ? This may well be a consequence of the conviction, but this is not really what the judge should be considering in his sentence.

talltim · 10 Sep 2013

I don't see his previous record as saying that he will be good during the two years his sentence is suspended, after all bieng banned from driving didn't stop him doing it again.
And quite frankly I don't see why the court should worry about ruining his career. How often do we see people come to this forum worrying about being caught without a train ticket ruining their completely un-railway related career, the courts don't seem to consider career then and they shouldn't worry about ruining a career in violence with a conviction for violence

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

yorksrob said:
But isn't whether he is struck off the medical register something for the keepers of the medical profession to decide rather than the judge ? This may well be a consequence of the conviction, but this is not really what the judge should be considering in his sentence.

Perhaps I picked a poor example with a doctor, then. I'm basically just trying to make the point that sending someone to prison is a very good way to ruin their career, and that it probably shouldn't be. The judge in this case appears to be trying to make sure the man gets punished without causing extra grief that someone who wasn't a potential Olympic kickboxer wouldn't have to go through.

talltim said:
I don't see his previous record as saying that he will be good during the two years his sentence is suspended, after all bieng banned from driving didn't stop him doing it again.
And quite frankly I don't see why the court should worry about ruining his career. How often do we see people come to this forum worrying about being caught without a train ticket ruining their completely un-railway related career, the courts don't seem to consider career then and they shouldn't worry about ruining a career in violence with a conviction for violence

Well perhaps the argument should be that they should, then!

Xenophon PCDGS · 10 Sep 2013

The sportsman who came to my mind as being brought to justice was Lee Hughes who was sentenced to six years imprisonment in 2004 for causing death by dangerous driving, but was released from prison in 2007 after serving half the custodial sentence. In May 2012, he was was charged with assaulting a woman at a hotel, to which he pleaded guilty. The only sentence given in that case was a fine of £500 and he was ordered to pay part of the prosecution costs.

yorksrob · 10 Sep 2013

TheKnightWho said:
Well perhaps the argument should be that they should, then!

I think in a way, it is honourable for a judge to want to punish people without the potentially life damaging consequences of imprisonment. However, I think that this position is much less justifiable when the convicted individual has been convicted several times previously and even less so when the crimes are violent.

TheKnightWho · 10 Sep 2013

yorksrob said:
I think in a way, it is honourable for a judge to want to punish people without the potentially life damaging consequences of imprisonment. However, I think that this position is much less justifiable when the convicted individual has been convicted several times previously and even less so when the crimes are violent.

I agree, and I think it's highly unlikely that he'll manage to stay out of trouble for the two year suspension (meaning an automatic imprisonment, I believe). I think it's also pretty unlikely that the judge will scrap the sentence at the end of it even if he does, especially with this public outcry. However, we can't pre-empt this and must wait for whether something actually happens.

Oswyntail · 10 Sep 2013

DarloRich said:
... Should mitigation not be allowed? ....

Of course it should, but it should be relevant. This chap has a certain measure of success at an extremely minor sport (I do not believe it is government funded in any way, but I could be wrong). He does not have a "career" in it - basically it is his hobby. He also seems particularly unsuited to it temperamentally, given his obvious tendency towards losing control of his violence. And his apparent use of drugs alone would, in internationally recognised sports, be enough to earn him a significant - not suspended - ban. Mitigation should (IMHO) not be about the effect of the sentence but about the cause of the incident.

Yet more madness from our legal system! Violent coward thug Ian Houillebecq let off

Forum Staff

Attachments

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member