Ranulph Fiennes & Di's Sister.

[Mistik-ka]

you can see how it could be seen in as a brawl.

Six men attacking two — four of the attackers masked and transported to the scene for the express purpose — does not sound like a "brawl" to me. It sounds like premeditated assault by a gang of thugs.

[Tangled Metal]

Not a brawl if I understand the reports correctly and their accurate. To me the two victims did not fight back. I'm not up on current etiquette regarding brawls but I always thought it involves two sides taking part equally. As in both sides fighting makes it a brawl. Two guys getting beaten up without fighting back is not that.

As I said, I don't one what current brawls look like. I think the closest I've been to a brawl is one bunch of my schoolmates fighting another set of school pupils when I was a kid at school. Not one of them ended up with broken necks and being thrown down an embankment. I guess that's grammar school kids for you, serious fighting isn't popular.

[thirdcrank]

They pleaded guilty to try and get a reduced sentence but would not help the police identify the remaining members of their gang of thugs. IMHO any sentence reduction for the plea should be conditional on the identification and prosecution of the others. ...

The legal system has become so clogged up that it has been thought necessary to formalise the sentence discount for defendants who plead guilty. It wasn't particularly easy because it inevitably implies that anybody who exercises their right to plead not guilty will be more severely punished if they are convicted. There are other aggravating / mitigating factors in sentencing but AFAIK, the discount for a guilty plea is independent of them.

I don't know anything in detail about this case but I can imagine various reasons for not identifying an accomplice, such as fear of reprisals. It's only a variation of the way independent witnesses often decide they don't want to become involved.

What is the procedure for prosecution to appeal a lenient sentence? Is there a procedure? I think there is but what is it?

The Attorney General can refer a case to the appeal courts either on the application of the CPS or a request from a member of the public which what he has been asked to do here. Historically, the prosecution in E&W has had no role in sentencing decisions, other than to apprise the court of relevant information. Sentencing guidelines are a recent development intended to reduce maverick sentencing, but allowing discretion.

[pwa]

If they rough the guy up, break his neck in three places then throw him down an embankment I am not sure they'd walk free with just a suspended sentence somehow.

But if the more significant injuries, those to the neck, are explainable as unintended when all that was meant was that the victim should suffer the indignity of a harmless tumble.... If it was accepted that the neck injury was unintended and not easily foreseen, you can see how it could be seen in as a brawl. That's not any sort of excuse in my book, but I think courts fall for it.

"Two or three approached me and basically kicked my walking pole out of my hand. As I bent down to pick it up I got punched in the chest, punched in the face, and one of them grabbed me and pushed me straight backwards off this 14ft drop.

"One of the masked thugs came down to me and started stamping on my arm and my shoulder and I think he was trying to see if I had got a camera."

A harmless tumble indeed.

Though I haven't followed the case, and like many here only became aware following Fiennes' intervention, I am wondering how the charges against the Grants were only ABH and GBH, and not of attempted murder given their actions on the day.

The Grants refusal to identify the four masked assailants that they summoned is one of the most rotten aspects of this case. Behaviour like this is appalling whether it's amongst an urban gang or a rural gang, and as naive as I certainly am on the workings of the law I would expect such an attitude to be rewarded with a custodial sentence.

Me too, but I'm just pointing out that similar levels of violence in urban settings are dealt with in a similarly inadequate way.

[pete75]

But if the more significant injuries, those to the neck, are explainable as unintended when all that was meant was that the victim should suffer the indignity of a harmless tumble.... If it was accepted that the neck injury was unintended and not easily foreseen, you can see how it could be seen in as a brawl. That's not any sort of excuse in my book, but I think courts fall for it.

"Two or three approached me and basically kicked my walking pole out of my hand. As I bent down to pick it up I got punched in the chest, punched in the face, and one of them grabbed me and pushed me straight backwards off this 14ft drop.

"One of the masked thugs came down to me and started stamping on my arm and my shoulder and I think he was trying to see if I had got a camera."

A harmless tumble indeed.

Though I haven't followed the case, and like many here only became aware following Fiennes' intervention, I am wondering how the charges against the Grants were only ABH and GBH, and not of attempted murder given their actions on the day.

The Grants refusal to identify the four masked assailants that they summoned is one of the most rotten aspects of this case. Behaviour like this is appalling whether it's amongst an urban gang or a rural gang, and as naive as I certainly am on the workings of the law I would expect such an attitude to be rewarded with a custodial sentence.

Me too, but I'm just pointing out that similar levels of violence in urban settings are dealt with in a similarly inadequate way.

In cases of GBH? Any examples?

[pwa]

A harmless tumble indeed.

Though I haven't followed the case, and like many here only became aware following Fiennes' intervention, I am wondering how the charges against the Grants were only ABH and GBH, and not of attempted murder given their actions on the day.

The Grants refusal to identify the four masked assailants that they summoned is one of the most rotten aspects of this case. Behaviour like this is appalling whether it's amongst an urban gang or a rural gang, and as naive as I certainly am on the workings of the law I would expect such an attitude to be rewarded with a custodial sentence.

Me too, but I'm just pointing out that similar levels of violence in urban settings are dealt with in a similarly inadequate way.

In cases of GBH? Any examples?

Not off the top of my head, but it is my long standing opinion that violent crimes are not always given the long custodial sentences they merit.

[thirdcrank]

It's easy to approach something like this from the wrong end. As I keep saying, there are sentencing guidelines to be followed and nowadays judges have to explain their arithmetic in open court. Defendants have much more scope - and motivation - to appeal against sentence than the prosecution. In theory at least, the judge can't decide to give a defendant a walk out and look for a way of achieving it. They calculate the sentence and if that involves custody, they decide whether it can be suspended, with quite a strong assumption that it should be. I see that in this case the calculation was thirteen months; in a system that tends to operate in units of three months, that sounds like the result of some arithmetic.

The disposal of cases from cautions right up to life sentences is the subject of a lot of political spin. While politicians of almost every stripe like to talk tough, their policies are different, not least because custody is so expensive, even at the squalid level of our prison system. On a practical level, the system could not work without a substantial number of custodial sentences being suspended.
I

In 2016, 56,317 offenders had a suspended sentence order imposed, representing five per cent of offenders sentenced.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ab ... sentences/
Unfortunately, that doesn't say what percentage of custodial sentences were suspended, but at a crude level, another 50K people in custody would swamp the prison system.

Sentencing has never been any of my business so I have to do a lot of looking up (about locking up )

I've found this blog from a defence barrister - who's advertising for business - quite informative and I think it's interesting for anybody who's interested, rather than settled in their ideas. It's in plain English rather than legalese.
How to avoid a prison sentence
http://www.bestcriminaldefencebarrister ... tence.aspx

[reohn2]

you can see how it could be seen in as a brawl.

Six men attacking two — four of the attackers masked and transported to the scene for the express purpose — does not sound like a "brawl" to me. It sounds like premeditated assault by a gang of thugs.

+1
And all because the victims were protesting against a possible illegal act

[thirdcrank]

Update here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-44847607

[Flinders]

If they rough the guy up, break his neck in three places then throw him down an embankment I am not sure they'd walk free with just a suspended sentence somehow.

But if the more significant injuries, those to the neck, are explainable as unintended when all that was meant was that the victim should suffer the indignity of a harmless tumble.... If it was accepted that the neck injury was unintended and not easily foreseen, you can see how it could be seen in as a brawl. That's not any sort of excuse in my book, but I think courts fall for it.

"Two or three approached me and basically kicked my walking pole out of my hand. As I bent down to pick it up I got punched in the chest, punched in the face, and one of them grabbed me and pushed me straight backwards off this 14ft drop.

"One of the masked thugs came down to me and started stamping on my arm and my shoulder and I think he was trying to see if I had got a camera."

A harmless tumble indeed.

Though I haven't followed the case, and like many here only became aware following Fiennes' intervention, I am wondering how the charges against the Grants were only ABH and GBH, and not of attempted murder given their actions on the day.

The Grants refusal to identify the four masked assailants that they summoned is one of the most rotten aspects of this case. Behaviour like this is appalling whether it's amongst an urban gang or a rural gang, and as naive as I certainly am on the workings of the law I would expect such an attitude to be rewarded with a custodial sentence.

What happened to that thing 'joint enterprise'? I'd also have thought that a jury and/or judge would be very unhappy with anyone in court who refused to identify other people present.

My concerns about character references are the same as my concerns about witness impact statements from friends and relatives of victims. A victim is not less of a victim if they don't have articulate/rich/powerful friends and relations- they may be more vulnerable, and more to be pitied. Just as someone with articulate friends and relatives (and often money and influence) ought not to be given more leeway to behave badly than someone without. Again, if anything, it's the reverse- from those who have more, more should be expected, and from those who have least, the little they have means more to them.