"THREATENING ABUSIVE OR INSULTING WORDS OR BEHAVIOUR OR
DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR WITHIN THE HEARING OR SIGHT OF A PERSON LIKELY TO BE
CAUSED HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS THEREBY.", according to the charge
sheet.
When he turned up to court magistrate told him he was being hard done by
with a banning order but that banning orders work! Apparently, since he
had no previoous convictions even the police told him they were surprised.
I'm in to process of trying to help him appeal, so if any listers can help
with any advice at all, I'd be delighted to hear from them, either on or
off list. I'm not condoning him having a go at the police, but a £240
fine and 3 year banning order seems excessive. If he'd not been
travelling back from a football match then they couldn't have done this to
him, of course.
Sean,
This probably won't help directly but it will give a very basic
understanding of the points that go to make up the sentence and the sentence
boundaries likely to have occurred in this instance.
It does seem (on the surface) to be a bit harsh, however, there isn't a
simple answer to this as there are other factors that are taken into
consideration when looking at sentences.
Looking at what you have put in the email it looks like a simple case of
being charged with a Public Order Offence, these normally carry a fine (Band
A to Band B) with the addition of an ancillary order, in this instance a
football banning order.
The range for a Band A fine is 25 - 75% of relevant weekly income with a
starting point of 50%.
The range for a Band B fine is 75 - 125% of relevant weekly income with a
starting point of 100%
There is also likely to have been a Victim Surcharge of £15 and possibly
Court costs (usually £60) added in to the Fine total.
The sentence range for a football banning order is generally 3 to 5 years
for someone who doesn't get a custodial sentence otherwise it is 6 to 10 if
you get a stretch at HM pleasure. The banning order can be added when the
court feels that the incident has occured during the course of a match
taking place, this includes, two hours before the scheduled kick-off, one
hour after and also journey to and from a match.
The main points for assessing the serious of the incident are to look at
culpability of the offender and the harm intended. In this particular
instance your mate used foul and abusive language to a copper in a public
place whilst the officer was performing his duty (which he can do using
'reasonable force'), therefore it was intentional and because of this he is
therefore culpable.
If you look at from a pure sentencing viewpoint the deal your mate got is
quite lenient and the banning order is the minimum, however, it could be
argued that on another day he may not have got the banning order
Pleading guilty at the first opportunity would normally bring a sentence
reduction of one third, when reducing the sentence the court should (but
doesn't have to) usually indicate what the sentence would have been.
On a slightly happier note if the word 'Intent' appeared on the charge sheet
things would have been a lot worse.
Based on the sentence received against what could have been given according
to the sentencing guidelines you would have to consider very carefully what
point to appeal and the use of a good solicitor is must. Remember that
appeals don't always go the way you want.
Cheers
Chris
_______________________________________________
the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators
accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors.
Leedslist mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad
