How Would You Handle These Two Cases: Lewis Gill Vs Matthew Probert

[sp1814]

In the first one, which we discussed here last week, Lewis Gill was sentenced to four years for manslaughter.

I think we can all agree - a very dangerous man who should go away for a long time:

http://news.sky.com/story/1217207/man-jailed-after-one-punch-killed-stranger

But then there's this story from this week. Two men get into a row in a bar, and one man goes off, obtains a claw hammer, waits for the other chap to exit the bar and smashes him so hard in the head that the claw hammer is left sticking out on it's own. I was actually embedded in his brain (think about that for a moment)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-26439104

Now, here's the thing, what sentence would be appropriate for this second case?

In the first, it was a single thump, which resulted in the man losing consciousness and hitting his head on the road and dying.

But isn't the second case even worse? Whilst the fortunate young man didn't die, Matthew Probert, got his mate to go home then drive into town with a hammer, and then smashed him in the skull...

...but as the victim didn't die...should the sentence be less severe?

[emmie]

both are violent thugs.

[New Judge]

It’s a strange concept which I often struggle to understand. Charging decisions and sentencing very often hinge on outcomes and not intentions. A very easy to understand example is dangerous driving (maximum sentence two years) and causing death by dangerous driving (14 years).

So driver A causes an accident by horrendous driving, maims ten people leaving some of them paralysed though none of the dies. Maximum for him is two years. Driver B kills a pedestrian whilst driving dangerously - maximum for him 14 years.

Both intended to drive dangerously (it’s not really something you can do recklessly) though it is doubtful that either intended to kill anyone. But driver B was unlucky.

I find it very puzzling.

[sp1814]

Am I the only one who is disappointed that Emile spotted her typo?

Possibly...

[sp1814]

Yes.

New Judge had clarified the point I was trying to make. The disparity between intent and outcome.

[emmie]

who is Emile ?

[Gromit]

Nj
Dangerous driving sentencing guidlines.

Level 1:

Starting point: 8 years custody 
Sentencing range: 7-14 years custody

[emmie]

no answer?

[EDDIE51]

The second case was GBH with intent, section 18.
To get a conviction for attempted murder it would necessary to prove beyond reasonable dought that the attacker intended to kill the victim rather than just cause him injury. Max sentence for GBH S18 is' life' .

[New Judge]

Those guidelines relate to causing death by dangerous driving, Gromit. Those for dangerous driving suggest various sentences ranging from a community order up to Crown Court where the maximum is two years. See page 120 of this document:

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

[Gromit]

Apologies NJ, you are right. I got mixed up.

[EDDIE51]

Sorry I see it was attempted murder. strange though it may seem the attacker could have got off the charge if he said that he just intended to injure the victim.
They took a chance on the attempted murder charge, he could have walked if the jury though he did not intend to kill. I would have thought a S18 charge was safer, as I said the max sentence is the same 'Life', but the chance of a conviction is a lot higher.

[sp1814]

emmie

iPad autocorrect.

Apologies.

[emmie]

if so i have no idea what you were alluding to.

[emmie]

are you sure it was me?

[sp1814]

emmie

Ah...it was ummm.

(Wrote 'pinch' instead of 'punch' in her post at 17:30.

Think I'll call it a night.

[ummmm]

:-)

[jno]

I tthink apples are worse than pears. Comparing 2 different crimes with different outcomes is a pointles excercise.

Nonetheless, the greengrocer has to fix a price for both, as the court has to fix a penalty for both crimes. So they will be weighing it up, even if you don't.

You have to balance intent and outcome, but I think the premeditation is a significant factor. In NJ's example both drivers may be dangerous but neither is actually going out of his way to try to hit anyone.

[New Judge]

No, there is no deliberate attempt to kill or harm anybody in either case. Although I suggested thatthe dangerous driving is probably intentional the regard for the outcome must be reckless. But it is the outcome that dictates the choice of two very different offences (and sentences). Iin my example it could be argued that driver B (who killed one person) had caused considerably lesser harm than driver A, who may have left a number of people paralysed though none of them died.