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

[DarloRich]

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.

Surely he would have to test positive for some form of illegal substance to earn a ban?

I should also point out that the report quoted makes reference to suspected cocaine whilst the "rap sheet" shows no drugs offenses. If he was carrying drugs surely there would be a possession or a possession with intent to supply charge.

As to mitigation: If i remember my definitions correctly then a mitigating factor is, in law, any information presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in a lesser sentence.

 

[cjp]

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.

If your sentence is suspended for a period and within that period you are not convicted of another crime then that is an end to it - nothing to be scrapped.
It is not the case that at the end of the period of suspension the sentence has to be served.

Effectively the judge, on the facts presented to him, said you are a bad lad, your crime deserves a prison sentence but if you can keep your nose clean for two years then you need not go to prison but come back to court for anything and away you go. Carrot and Stick.

I do not agree with the sentence in the light of information presented here but I was not in court. If the prosecutor, who was, thinks things are wrong perhaps the sentence will be reviewed.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If your sentence is suspended for a period and within that period you are not convicted of another crime then that is an end to it - nothing to be scrapped.
It is not the case that at the end of the period of suspension the sentence has to be served.

Effectively the judge, on the facts presented to him, said you are a bad lad, your crime deserves a prison sentence but if you can keep your nose clean for two years then you need not go to prison but come back to court for anything and away you go. Carrot and Stick.

I do not agree with the sentence in the light of information presented here but I was not in court. If the prosecutor, who was, thinks things are wrong perhaps the sentence will be reviewed.

That's not true. It's usual but not required for a sentence to be scrapped at the end of a suspension.

 

[Oswyntail]

Surely he would have to test positive for some form of illegal substance to earn a ban?

I should also point out that the report quoted makes reference to suspected cocaine whilst the "rap sheet" shows no drugs offenses. If he was carrying drugs surely there would be a possession or a possession with intent to supply charge.

As to mitigation: If i remember my definitions correctly then a mitigating factor is, in law, any information presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in a lesser sentence.

Depends on the spot - in some, possession of an illegal substance can be punished.
You may well be technically right on mitigation, but, IMHO (as I wrote) it should be relevant - damaging one's success in a minor hobby isn't

 

[maniacmartin]

Wading in here...

The criminal is down only £500, but the victim is down 3 weeks' wages, and £13,000 to pay for a new taxi. I know we don't have 'an eye for an eye' but this is frankly ridiculous.

 

[D365]

And the horror of having to face and deal with this traumatic event... At least going by what was written.

 

[jon0844]

Yeah, but he might get a gold medal one day. That's far more important!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yeah, but he might get a gold medal one day. That's far more important!

With regard to Kickboxing:-

ISKA is a recognised world regulatory body for this sport

NAKMAS is the British independent national governing body for this sport.

I wonder if either body has rules that govern the taking of certain drugs of the type that the accused is said to consume. With regard to medals, in what competitions does Kickboxing give medals ?

 

[swj99]

Isn't it obvious to anyone else why he didn't get sent down ?

It's because he didn't say nasty things on the internet.

 

[HST Power]

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

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

My point was more to do with my personal opinion, relating to the maxim that his career did not deserve to suffer, as opposed to being an attack on the judgement of the Court. I will accept that we don't know anything about how the evidence was examined, or how the sentencing guidelines were interpreted. Nonetheless, as far as I'm concerned it seems like an unfair ruling, and I am sure you can see why it has triggered such responses. You make it sound as if understanding the legal system is simply a case of putting on the kettle and cracking open a textbook!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Has anyone here actually read the court judgement in full, or are you just reading a poorly written news article and then deciding you are right?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[jb]

Has anyone here actually read the court judgement in full, or are you just reading a poorly written news article and then deciding you are right?

The implication seems to be that reading the full judgment might make one less mad. I would suggest the opposite is probably more likely.

 

[Oswyntail]

Has anyone here actually read the court judgement in full, or are you just reading a poorly written news article and then deciding you are right?...

I understand exactly what you are getting at, as, with law, as with every technical area, there is a vast amount of background that explains apparently inexplicable phenomena. However, it is quite common on this forum to deny the validity of members' opinions on the grounds of lack of technical background. This does miss a very strong point. There may be 1,001 excellent and correct reasons why an apparently feeble sentence has been handed down to an apparently mindless thug, and it may well be that the report we have been shown has only one accurate word in it. This does not invalidate the expression of opinions, that, if the circumstances were as reported, and if the legal system can be used in such a way as to produce a pathetic sentence, then the legal system is wrong. If we all accepted the argument (often expressed elsewhere) that non-practitioners should not have opinions on matters of which they have no direct experience, society would never advance at all. I know (from experience!) how frustrating it can be when hard facts are misrepresented, but I feel it is then my duty to correct these.

 

[soil]

Has anyone here actually read the court judgement in full, or are you just reading a poorly written news article and then deciding you are right?

I don't think the court judgements are readily available online.

However the facts of the case are clearly serious.

"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 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.

He has flashbacks and needs sleeping pills to help him sleep while his family, following the burglary, are scared to be alone in their house. He came to England from India seven years ago and had never had any racial abuse in his four years working as a taxi driver."

If you compare that with a case such as this one:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...st-rant-was-caught-on-film-video-7799850.html

where a woman got rather mouthy on the train and essentially everyone laughed at her - she was given twenty-one weeks in prison.

Clearly the man in this case committed far more serious crimes, and yet we are told that his career should be protected in order that we can cheer him on (no thanks!) as he represents our country.

According to this: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/jacqueline-woodhouse/45/718/316 Ms. Woodhouse is (or was) 'seeking work'. Clearly going to prison would curtail or end her career as a PA. Which is sad for her. So why are we supposed to feel sorry for a kickboxer?

 

[DarloRich]

I don’t feel sorry for him - I think he is a criminal scumbag who seems to have got a light sentence - however I think that the aspect of "protecting his career" has been highlighted and overplayed, no doubt purposefully, in the local media to generate a reaction.

I also feel I should point out that the maximum sentence for "racial assault" which I assume to be Racially or Religiously Aggravated Common Assault (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 29(1)(c) ) is 2 years imprisonment.

 

[michael769]

That's not true. It's usual but not required for a sentence to be scrapped at the end of a suspension.

No that's not right. The sentence can only be implemented if the conditions of the suspended sentence order are breached, see sect 193 and Schedule 12 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003.

 

[soil]

I don’t feel sorry for him - I think he is a criminal scumbag who seems to have got a light sentence - however I think that the aspect of "protecting his career" has been highlighted and overplayed, no doubt purposefully, in the local media to generate a reaction.

I also feel I should point out that the maximum sentence for "racial assault" which I assume to be Racially or Religiously Aggravated Common Assault (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 29(1)(c) ) is 2 years imprisonment.

Common assault is the most minor offence here, and normally would not occasion a custodial sentence.

More serious is the aggravated vehicle taking.

For TWOC where the vehicle is damaged, the sentencing range is:

"Exceeding authorised use of e.g. employer’s or
relative’s vehicle; retention of hire car beyond return
date; minor damage to taken vehicle" - Low level community order to high level community order

"Greater damage to taken vehicle and/or moderate
damage to another vehicle and/or property" "Medium level community order to 12 weeks custody"

"Vehicle taken as part of burglary or from private
premises; severe damage " "12 to 26 weeks custody (Crown Court if
damage over £5,000)"

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/MCSG_Update9_October_2012.pdf

As the vehicle was taken part of a burglary, and it was written off, it falls into the most serious category

" Offender under inluence of alcohol/drugs" is a further aggravating factor.

The driving while disqualified is not particularly serious given that the ban was nearly finished.

The burglary is also relatively serious.

Clearly he should be serving a custodial sentence.

 

[DarloRich]

Common assault is the most minor offence here, and normally would not occasion a custodial sentence.

More serious is the aggravated vehicle taking.

For TWOC where the vehicle is damaged, the sentencing range is:

"Exceeding authorised use of e.g. employer’s or
relative’s vehicle; retention of hire car beyond return
date; minor damage to taken vehicle" - Low level community order to high level community order

"Greater damage to taken vehicle and/or moderate
damage to another vehicle and/or property" "Medium level community order to 12 weeks custody"

"Vehicle taken as part of burglary or from private
premises; severe damage " "12 to 26 weeks custody (Crown Court if
damage over £5,000)"

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/MCSG_Update9_October_2012.pdf

As the vehicle was taken part of a burglary, and it was written off, it falls into the most serious category

" Offender under inluence of alcohol/drugs" is a further aggravating factor.

The driving while disqualified is not particularly serious given that the ban was nearly finished.

The burglary is also relatively serious.

Clearly he should be serving a custodial sentence.

Agreed -Although I thought there was a higher chance of custody with a "racial" aspect to a common assault. The article quoted seems to gloss over the other offences and concentrate on the racial assault angle.

Even with his (assumed but not reported) guilty plea and any mitigation he should be in the big house. He must have a good brief!