Having built a career on finding loopholes in the prosecution’s case and catching out officers of the court who don’t know the law, I’m the first to admit legal proceedings don’t always follow the expected script.
However, nothing I’ve been involved with compares to the outrageously lenient sentence meted out this week to three thugs who terrorised a teenager with special needs.
Yet, though Judge Jonathan Geake labelled the crimes ‘grotesque’ at Manchester Crown Court, he only handed out community service orders and three-month curfews to Jack Bolton, Andrew Griffin and Nathan Marshall.
He also ordered them to be supervised by probation officers for 12 months.
This deplorable excuse for a sentence is at best risible and at worst as grotesque as the heinous crimes carried out by this trio of callous thugs.
Did he genuinely believe he was dealing with a contrite triumvirate of otherwise blameless citizens who were worthy of a second chance?
Perhaps he had one eye on the sentencing guidelines which are designed to avoid costly custody.
And if that’s the way judges dispense justice, then let’s ship them off to work for social services instead.
Cases that sicken are precisely the kind that warrant immediate custody, irrespective of remorse, contrition and previous good character.
If ever there was a case for bringing back the birch, this is it.
Punishment must strike fear to be a deterrent.
Instead, sentences like this make me ashamed of the judiciary, which as a solicitor, I stand before.
It seems the ethos of our judicial system is failing. Not only do we have judges who equate the offences of sadistic, sickening psychopaths with nicking daffodils from a park, we also have jobsworth police officers who, fired up by a sense of their own importance, harangue motorists at the slightest provocation.
Only this week, photographer Dave Hogan was waiting at a red traffic light when he reached over to the passenger seat to rescue his phone as it was about to fall on the floor. A copper pulled him over and offered him a fixed penalty of £60 and three points, even though his mobile phone records would prove that no call was made.
If the unfortunate Mr Hogan chooses to take his chance in court, he’ll have to take the day off work and pay a lawyer £500 to argue his case.
Not so, Mr Hogan. I’m so incensed by this frequent example of inept policing that I’ll do it for free.
Both these examples lack the simple common sense the public crave and need for their own protection.
Taxpayers’ money should be spent punishing vermin who torture the innocent, not on motorists stopped at a red light reaching for a stray mobile phone.
Or is fairness no longer an essential component of justice ?
Let’s get our advice right
I NEARLY choked on my cappuccino when reading the motoring pages of a Sunday broadsheet newspaper the other week.
For there, in print, a fellow lawyer who claims to specialise in traffic offences, suggested that if a motorist gets flashed by a copper with a speed camera, the reading is invalid if the police officer isn’t in full uniform – a splendid so-called loophole… if only it were true.
But the fact is a police officer’s dress code is irrelevant.
He could be wearing a basque and stilettos, the reading would be admissible.
I applaud newspapers who secure the professional services of top lawyers to provide free advice to their readers. But let’s get it right, eh?
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
I have always had a great respect for the sanctity of the law and the fact that prosecutors should always do their utmost to secure a conviction and the defence should always do their utmost to have a Not Guilty verdict returned. For me it's the only way the system can work, and that is why I have never had a problem with people using loopholes.
However ever in this case I feel truly let down by the system. These guys pleaded "Guilty".
There was no doubt they did these horrible acts, and they essentially walked away.
If I am left cold by this sentence I can't even imagine how the injured party feels.
BTW the day I get flashed by a PoliceMAN wearing a Basque and stilettos is the day I hand my license back!
If the unfortunate Mr Hogan chooses to take his chance in court, he’ll have to take the day off work and pay a lawyer £500 to argue his case.
Not so, Mr Hogan. I’m so incensed by this frequent example of inept policing that I’ll do it for free.
Struggling for publicity these days I see Nick! To be fair after some of you more recent court cases I think Mr Hogan would be better off defending himself. Ask Jimmy Carr and see what he says!!
In answer to your headline - When will the law show some common sense?
When people like you stop finding loopholes knowing full well that you are going against the principles of why the laws are made.
A truely perfect law means a lot of people on the dole "Nick freeman"And Co.
Should you be discussing your cases in public before they go to court? How do you know Mr 'Hulk' Hogan wasn't about to make a call or he wasn't checking his text messages?
Hello, Re your comment Nick, Ill do it for free, I wish you could help me with my case, I agree with Master of Nothing, Manchester,"Innocent till proven guilty" is no longer the case in England & Wales. It has changed to "if it could be reasonably believed that the defendant had committed the crime". This has shifted the balance onto the defence to prove innocence, not the prosecution proving guilt.
Look at any legislation, and the burden of proof no longer exists. In trials there used to be a requirement for a judge to direct the jury where there was no corroborating evidence to a criminal prosecution. This was removed, and a person can be convicted on no evidence.,This has happened to me not once but twice, Iam 81 years old, severely disabled (I was born with cerebral paulsea) I had my Pension Credit stopped & my Council Tax Benefit stopped & clawed back 6 years ago, I appealed to a DWP Tribunal where the elderley chairwoman keeps insisting that I have savings of £200,000 and that I have been incolved in a scam with no factual evidence whatsoever,and when I appealed again against her decision, my appeal was heard again by the same elderley chairwoman in the same court, I have no criminal record whatsoever, so thats the way I was treated by British Justice, and I was born in Salford, I still get up at 6am on a Sunday morning and go to work at Computer Fairs so that me and my wife can survive, thats how the British Government look after their own citzens, hope you like my story if yiu want my full story just ask oddlegs@hotmail.com, regards from old oddlegs from Bury
I am amazed that a solicitor with the experience of Mr Freeman, admittedly focused on privately funded motiring loophole cases instead of more general legal aid cases like this, would comment in such a way. Let's put aside the whiff of hypocrisy from a man who has made a very comfortable life for himself by exploiting minor details to aquit people who could be described as factually guilty. I'm sure the Judiciary will be less than upset to know Mr Freeman is "ashamed" of them.
The issue is that Mr Freeman, like virtually everyone who has commented on this headline-grabbing story, has only heard the "facts" of the case from the media articles. The reality was far more complex than has been outlined, and while it could have justified a prison sentence, Judge Geake (not known for a soft approach towards criminals) felt that there were other sentenes that were appropriate. Justice considers all sides, not a snapshot headline.
If Mr Freeman really thinks that this case is as straightforward as the MEN has outlined it, then he's simply out of touch with criminal law beyond Road Traffic Offences.
'This deplorable excuse for a sentence is at best risible and at worst as grotesque as the heinous crimes carried out by this trio of callous thugs.'
Are you not aware there's a severe shortage of adjectives at the moment? You've just used up a week's worth in that one sentence....