A PENSIONER who plunged a knife into a man's neck during a street row has been jailed for seven years.
David Broady, a 71 year old grandfather who once earned his living as a boxer and club bouncer, was described at Manchester Crown Court as a 'gentle giant' who loved to help his neighbours.
But a judge said courts were being encouraged by the Court of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, to reduce knife crime and that could only be brought about by deterrent sentences.
Judge Anthony Gee said: "This court has always sought to make it clear that the carrying and use of lethal weapons in the streets will not be tolerated and only substantial sentences can follow whatever the personal circumstances of the offender."
He told Broady the victim, 25-year-old Craig Douglas, may have been making a nuisance of himself during the incident but he did not deserve to be stabbed.
He said: "What is necessary is that I mark this grave offence involving the carrying and the use of a knife not only to punish you for causing the death of another human being but to deter others."
Broady, of Victoria Square, Oldham Road, Ancoats, who worked as a steel erector until he retired, had been cleared of murdering Mr Douglas but was convicted of his manslaughter after a six-day trial.
The victim, a known drug user, bled to death when he was stabbed in the throat during the incident at the junction of Canal Street and Minshull Street near Piccadilly station.
Broady fled from the scene and got rid of the knife which he had been carrying round for six years after claiming he had been beaten and kicked by thugs.
He then left a note for his former wife and left Manchester but he later contacted police and claimed he was acting in self-defence after Mr Douglas ran at him with his hands raised.
But Judge Gee said Broady, who lived in sheltered housing, was 'not frail or timid' and his strength and fitness level were more consistent with a much younger man.
After the case the senior investigating officer Vinny Chadwick, said it was a tragic incident which started as a row but ended in the death of a young man.
He said: "Broady admitted he was carrying a knife and he must have known the consequences of using that weapon, consequences that resulted in Craig's death. I hope that today's conclusion is of some comfort to the family and gives them closure".
Tweet
Pensioner jailed over knife murder
November 12, 2008
David Broady

Showing comments 1 to 17 and replies | View All
alison torock, manchester (12/11/2008 at 10:35)
Black Flag (12/11/2008 at 11:45)
alison torock, manchester (12/11/2008 at 12:17)
Black Flag (12/11/2008 at 12:32)
Pentest 2, Hyde (12/11/2008 at 12:37)
2 against 1 so far.
Marc (12/11/2008 at 12:43)
alison torock, manchester (12/11/2008 at 12:55)
Black Flag (12/11/2008 at 13:03)
Marc (12/11/2008 at 13:16)
Rob Wilson (12/11/2008 at 13:19)
Black Flag (12/11/2008 at 13:33)
I tend to agree with that. I don't have a problem with somebody carrying a weapon or using it in genuine self defence.
"This man probably feared for his life when a drug crazed scum bag got in his face."
Really? That's a big assumption. The jury had more information than in the article and they seemed to think otherwise.
"Im sure he didnt mean to kill the other man"
He stabbed him in the throat, so he must have intended to do some serious harm to him.
"Its time for self-defence laws to be updated and the do-good brigade to step down and support the real victims of crime, not the initial offenders."
The self-defence laws are good as they are and in this case you seem to be part of the do-good brigade, attempting the excuse the actions of a violent criminal.
Rob Wilson (12/11/2008 at 14:32)
'Im sure he didnt mean to kill the other man'.'He stabbed him in the throat, so he intended to do serious harm to him'. - Yes he probably did, and rightly so, if he feared for his own life. But serious harm and death are 2 different things. Death wasnt intended, hence the manslaughter conviction. People have walked out of court with manslaughter convictions. This man was jailed because of the media frenzy about knife crime at the moment.
As for your do-good brigade comment. The only do-good brigade I belong to, is the one where honest working everyday people can protect whats theirs, including their lives, whether its with violence or not. Im pro capital punishment and believe in fighting fire with fire. You start something, you deal with the consequences no matter how harsh. Maybe then, there might be some order in this world full of people like you, defending junkie scum.
Marc (12/11/2008 at 14:48)
Black Flag (12/11/2008 at 15:23)
No, it is why he was convicted of manslaughter and not acquitted, which would have happened if the jury had considered it to be self-defence.
"Im sure something drove this man to pull a knife and lunge it at the other man."
What absolute bleeding-heart nonsense. Are you making a special case for this man, or do you think that every killer is really good on the inside and must have been driven to it?
"But why was there a altercation in the first place? Was it not to do with this idiot being a general nuisance"
Oh well, if he was being a nuisance, stabbing him in the throat was fine then! So if an OAP becomes a nuisance by pushing into a bus queue, is it acceptable to kill them? What about if somebody looks at you the wrong way in a pub?
"You start something, you deal with the consequences no matter how harsh."
Ok, so if you cut somebody up in your car, does that entitle them to pull you out of the car and stab you in retaliation?
Unfortunately for you, killing somebody in self-defence requires that you have a better reason than just being annoyed with someone.
Rob Wilson (12/11/2008 at 17:10)
First, there would have been no altercation if not for the idiots actions. Granted this doesnt warrant death, but he started it. End of. One thing can lead to another, situations can snowball, but the be all and end all is, if not for being an intimidating bully idiot, none of this would have happened.
It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest I think every killer is good on the inside as it is for you to suggest every killer is bad. Soldiers kill, policemen kill, innocent people kill. Are they ALL bad?
Your the type of person who would like to help/save the unsavable and go for the easy option of condemning the victims of crime. Bet you thought Tony Martin (the farmer who shot a burglar dead on his property) got what he deserved, didnt you? People need to learn respect for other people and their property. No matter how old, young, weak, strong, big or small. The perpetrator of a crime should lose all his/her human rights there and then. Or before long, we will live in a society run amok. This is why the countries the way it is and crime is as high as it is.
Secondly, to my point, if he was convicted of manslaughter, that means the jury thought he didnt intend to kill him ie probably didnt mean to stab him in the throat, as thats more than likely going to kill someone. Therefore, no, im not suggesting that its ok to kill someone your annoyed with, but perfectly moral to defend yourself by whatever means if someone should make you frightened enough to feel your life is in danger. I hope your never the victim of crime as I would hate to think what could happen to someone who will roll over so easy and let them get away with it. Turn the other cheek and wave the white flag, eh black flag?
Rob Wilson (12/11/2008 at 17:23)
Black Flag (13/11/2008 at 08:47)
You seem to have become very confused. The criminal in this case was the one who was convicted of manslaughter and the victim was the person he killed. I am not condemning the victim, I am condemning the criminal.
"The perpetrator of a crime should lose all his/her human rights there and then. Or before long, we will live in a society run amok. This is why the countries the way it is and crime is as high as it is."
Except for the criminals you like, obviously, who should have carte blanche to go on killing sprees.
"Therefore, no, im not suggesting that its ok to kill someone your annoyed with, but perfectly moral to defend yourself by whatever means if someone should make you frightened enough to feel your life is in danger."
And was that the case here? The jury didn't seem to think so. You've concocted your own version of events without anything to support it.
"I hope your never the victim of crime as I would hate to think what could happen to someone who will roll over so easy and let them get away with it. Turn the other cheek and wave the white flag, eh black flag?"
You're really clutching at straws now, aren't you. I said earlier "I don't have a problem with somebody carrying a weapon or using it in genuine self defence."