THE father of a schoolboy stab victim has welcomed a judge's decision to double the knife thug's jail sentence.
He said the ruling, delivered by the nation's top judge, sent out a 'strong message' to society on knife crime.
Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, increased the boy's sentence from two to four years and also ordered that he could be named for the first time after lifted reporting restrictions which had previously granted him anonymity.
James Green, of Wingate Drive, Whitefield, near Bury, was 15 when he viciously stabbed the 16-year-old through the thigh on a bus with a fearsome hunting knife. The boy had accidentally bumped into Green when it braked. The stabbing left the schoolboy paralysed below the left knee.
Green, now 16, pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm and was given a two-year detention and training order. It meant he would have served 12 months in detention then completed the remaining sentence on a restraining order.
But Lord Judge, sitting at the Appeal Court in London, doubled the 'unduly lenient sentence' to four years and said the knife thrust was delivered with such force 'it literally penetrated right through the victim's leg'.
Persevere
The boy's father, who criticised the initial sentence, told the M.E.N: "We just wanted justice to be done. We did not feel that spending a year in jail was long enough. I am just surprised that the first judge did not realise how serious it was. We welcome the ruling from a justice point of view and we hope that the sentence will provide him with a vehicle to recognise what he has done and change his ways. It will also give hope to other parents. They should persevere and justice will be done."
The court heard that the knife missed a vital artery 'by millimetres'. Had it punctured his femoral artery there would 'very probably' have been a `corpse' lying on the ground, the judge said. The court heard Green's attack was triggered by a 'trivial incident' on the bus minutes earlier in which the boy accidentally bumped into him when it braked without warning in Whitefield last September.
The two boys traded insults before Green rushed home to arm himself with the hunting knife. The court heard he ran back to confront the victim, who had tried to flee protesting that 'he didn't want any trouble'. He was finally pushed to the ground and curled into a ball in a futile attempt to protect himself, said Lord Judge. The court heard the victim's mother ran to his aid. Lord Judge said she was terrified after he mouthed out: "Mum, I think I'm going to die".
The judge - sitting with Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Sweeney - said the two-year term was too light and failed to reflect the gravity of the crime. Police have never found the knife, but uncovered an empty sheath from Green's home. Pictures of a knife similar to that described by witnesses were also recovered on his mobile phone.
The boy's father said he was continuing to recover from the ordeal. He said: "He is still paralysed below the knee. There are long-term consequences. He has got nerve damage which is looking like it is permanent. Ultimately this ruling sends a stronger message to people who have committed a crime and are going through the criminal justice system."
Green's mother yesterday defended her son and claimed he was bullied on the bus.
Amanda Green, 41, said: "What James died was totally wrong. I am not happy that he has had his sentence doubled because at the end of the day he has been a victim for 12 months.
"He was tormented on that bus every night from school. We are not condoning what he did, but he snapped after being tormented. He went over the top but he is not a thug."
Tweet
Justice for stabbed boy
October 20, 2008
This picture was found on Green's mobile phone.

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Longshots Wife (20/10/2008 at 09:27)
RJKS, St Retford (20/10/2008 at 09:29)
The Seeker, Eccles (20/10/2008 at 09:46)
Black Flag (20/10/2008 at 09:48)
It might be a nice populist soundbite policy, but it would be completely impractical and probably counter-productive.
Somebody who is carrying a knife with the intention of using it in an act of aggression is unlikely to be deterred by a 5 year sentence for possession if the sentence for using it is, quite rightly, longer anyway. Somebody carrying one for the purposes of self-defence, however, will be deterred. The end result - well armed criminals and a vulnerable public. Not a good situation as far as I'm concerned.
On a practical note, plenty of people carry knives and other sharp objects as part of their job or hobby, so a blanket ban just isn't feasible.
We need to stop all the silly hysteria about the mere possession of knives and focus on punishing the mis-use of them.
Viewer of Life, Stockport (20/10/2008 at 10:07)
Regarding your comments criticising Longshots Wife. I am sure when she (he) wrote "It should be an automatic PRISON sentence of 5 years for anyone found in possession of a knife" she actually meant anyone who does not have legitimate reason to carry a knife. Time and space constraints prevent us from putting fully argued ideas forward.
Secondly if I follow the logic of your argument, we should all carry guns.
For example I have changed the word “knife” for “gun” then your argument is:-
Somebody who is carrying a gun with the intention of using it in an act of aggression is unlikely to be deterred by a 5 year sentence for possession if the sentence for using it is, quite rightly, longer anyway. Somebody carrying one for the purposes of self-defence, however, will be deterred. The end result - well armed criminals and a vulnerable public. Not a good situation as far as I'm concerned
dog hardy, manchester (20/10/2008 at 10:34)
Longshots Wife (20/10/2008 at 11:26)
V.O.L Stockport, yes, that's what I meant, thank you. We need strong deterrents to try and stop people carrying weapons for no reason whatsoever.
Black Flag (20/10/2008 at 11:43)
Why?
I agree that sombody who attacks another person should face a harsh sentence, but why do we need to punish people who haven't attacked anybody else?
I'd also be interested to know what you would consider to be an acceptable reason to carry a "weapon" and for that matter, what your definition of a weapon is.
Ace Shakespeare , manchester (20/10/2008 at 11:56)
milli vanillis toyboy uncle, stocky (20/10/2008 at 13:22)
Good grief , that is a ridiculous story !!1
Anybody who would be inclined to think it might be true want locking up too .
rebecca Clough (20/10/2008 at 15:28)
This is a refreshing story as its not every day that u see scum getting wot they deserve !!!!
Longshots Wife (20/10/2008 at 15:30)
My definition of a weapon I suppose would be an item or items of which when used with intent is to harm others.
jp w (20/10/2008 at 18:50)
As for the young boy, his original sentance should of been kept, I don't think you should kick a dog twice, granted something has to be done to stop these crimes, but isn't it obvious that there not working. I personally think, by sending young boys to prison will only educate them with prison life. Why don't we make them into responsible young adults who have respect for life, by sending them to a youth army camp.
amanda green (20/10/2008 at 18:53)
Black Flag (20/10/2008 at 19:58)
Would you include the police in that? If so, then while I disagree with your point, I would respect your opinion for at least being consistent and seeking to apply the law equally to all.
"My definition of a weapon I suppose would be an item or items of which when used with intent is to harm others."
That covers a huge range of items - if you are including knives, then you could say the same about screwdrivers, scissors, planks of wood, bottles, keys, dogs and cars. In all cases, the items can be used for non-aggressive purposes, but can also be used to harm others. If you want to hand out 5 years in prison for mere possession of a knife, would you hand out the same sentence for possession of any of the others?
amanda green (20/10/2008 at 20:52)
Longshots Wife (20/10/2008 at 21:03)
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: It is an offence to have an article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed.
In a public place (ie, any place to which at the material time the public has or is permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise). It shall be a defense to show that he/she had good reason or lawful authority for having it, or that he/she had it with him/her for use at work, for religious reasons, or as part of a national costume.
Section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 defines an offensive weapon as: Any article made or adapted for causing injury OR articles to be intended to be used for such purposes.
Black Flag (21/10/2008 at 08:56)
If the only justification that you need for possession of an item to be a crime is the law current says it is, then it is also right that possession of a knife doesn't carry the five year sentence you want it to, because that is also what the law currently says.
Viewer of Life, Stockport (21/10/2008 at 08:58)
I notice you have not responded to my point about your argument validating the use of guns.
You are being particularly pedantic with respect to Longshots Wife’s comments. Surely you can understand the intent of what she says. Clearly again when she states “"there is no acceptable reason for anyone to be carrying a weapon", in my opinion she means anyone who does not have legal dispensation to carry a weapon. (yes some people can carry weapons…fact, if you want to get into an infantile argument of who can carry weapons, go ahead)
A weapon (as described by Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) any object used in fighting or war, such as a gun, bomb, sword, etc. So clearly any law in this instance could not use the word “weapon” explicitly.
Don’t even get me started on your argument about carrying “weapons” being OK, asa form of defence.
Longshots Wife (21/10/2008 at 09:05)
Viewer of Life, Stockport (21/10/2008 at 09:08)
Again Mrs (Miss) Green, with respect I get sick of hearing people bleating that their child has been made an example of. Once you have committed a crime you can’t start complaining that your sentence is too light. You do the crime you takes your chances.
Black Flag (21/10/2008 at 09:54)
I did, but the comment wasn't published. In short, a gun is different because it is arguably not possible to use it safely in a public place without endangering third parties, but in any case, the bans that came from the previous gun hysteria haven't eradicated gun crime and any action taken to ban knives will be even less successful.
"yes some people can carry weapons…fact, if you want to get into an infantile argument of who can carry weapons, go ahead"
If you find it infantile that I believe we should have a system where we are all treated equally under the law, that says an awful lot about you.
"But this instance is a graphic argument against Black Flag’s argument that carrying weapons for self protection is OK"
No it isn't, because that wasn't the case here. The boy went home to get a knife with what appears to be the intention of stabbing somebody with it. It should be obvious that nanny-statist draconian punishments for carrying a knife would make no difference to someone who has it with the intention of stabbing someone with it, unless you make the punishment for carrying a knife more severe than the punishment for stabbing someone, which would clearly be stupid.
Viewer of Life, Stockport (21/10/2008 at 10:18)
We are all treated equally when you include the caveats, that are required to normalise the given set of circumstances. For example you can kill someone. If you do it, while protecting yourself, using justifiable force and your assailant dies, you (probably) will not be charged with murder..
Another example: someone I know works for the UK FBI, he trails serious and dangerous criminals, putting his life and personal safety in clear and present danger constantly. He does this to protect people like you and I. The people he is involved with kill people. In order to protect his life in dangerous circumstances he is allowed to carry a gun. He can’t go shooting people with it because he is still subject to the law.
Black Flag (21/10/2008 at 10:54)
I don't want to carry a gun, but if one person is going to be allowed to do it, then we all should. That is the basis of a democratic society.
Viewer of Life, Stockport (21/10/2008 at 11:20)
You state “That is the basis of a democratic society”.
Here are some definitions of democracy: -
· the political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives
· a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
· majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
I Don’t see how you connect democracy to this debate.