Teenage boy receives referral order after stabbing girl who rejected him

Have only read the first couple of pages. The common denominator in all these cases of pathetically lenient sentences when we finally get (very few) men in court to face charges of VAWAG - the sentences if actually found guilty are laughably lenient - is: sentencing guidelines coupled with judges who appear to be more considerate of the perpetrator than the victims.

So what can we do? Whenever there is an election, local or general, we must persist in asking and pressing the point of what they are going to do about the epidemic of male VAWAG. And keep pressing the point that sentencing guidelines are wrong.

And when the inevitable "prisons are too full" answer comes: press them on why non-violent crimes are being punished with prison time. Keep pushing the point home.

wtf! Is this at school or after?!

I don't remember that story at all. Those poor parents, imagine carrying that around in your head for the rest of your life.

Has there been any explanation from the CPS as to why they charged him with lesser crimes and not attempted murder?

There was that lad earlier this year who stabbed and killed a child. He walked away scott free

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jyejngg4eo

Has this made the CPS frit? Are they worried juries won't convict young boys and men of serious crimes? This is just speculation but I'm at a loss for any other explanation.

' pleaded guilty to wounding with intent, inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent and possession of a bladed article in a public place.'

I don't know enough to understand why 'wounding with intent' isn't a 'grave crime' but 'serious assault' is.

Dangerous offenders
Youths aged 12-17 who are convicted of a ‘specified’ offence that merits a custodial sentence of at least four years, and who may pose risk to the public by committing further specified offences, may be deemed by the courts to be a dangerous offender. Dangerous offenders made subject to custodial sentences of detention are likely to receive an extended sentence of detention, similar to the extended sentences available for adults who are deemed to be dangerous (see our Explainer on Extended Sentences).

I guess that's what the judge referred to when he talked about whether or not the boy is dangerous. That seems subjective and the judge's view seems, frankly, wrong.

So, why didn't it go up to a Crown Court?

https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/sentencinghub/sentences-explained/sentencing-of-children-and-youths/

https://www.bindmans.com/news-insights/blogs/grave-crimes-serious-youth-criminal-offences/

Even if they only charged him with 'serious assault', that is still, I think, a 'grave crime'.

I think so, unless it's actual murder.

https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-terms-z/which-court

But surely premeditated stabbing like this, which to me looks like attempted murder, is a 'grave crime'?

https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-terms-z/grave-crime

Are you seriously saying that any 18 year old or younger, could stab someone as many times as they like and as long as it is their first offence and the victim doesn't die, then they cannot be put in prison?
That sounds utterly ridiculous to me.

OP I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this, but it is likely the judges only option was a referal order or custody, and a referral
order can only be up to 12 months. Im
not saying that he should not have gone to custody, but if this was his first offence those are the only options the Judge could consider

Perhaps if it stayed away from claiming women were being murdered and eaten by Asian men, it may have had a chance.

This makes me so angry. This wasn’t a spare of the moment reaction, which is bad enough, but she rejected him months earlier, he stalked her, had the sense to create fake accounts to stalk her, he knew where she was, he waited for her, he brought a knife and went straight for her. His intent to kill her is obvious. He should be put behind bars for a very long time, I don’t care if he’s 14yo.

But there's been (is) a Party Of Women, which has managed to get only limited support. It's a difficult situation, but I think holding the feet of the big party politicians to the fire will maybe be bring better results.

Get a grip ffs is a brilliant slogan. It’s what we’re all muttering every day I think.
See also Oh ffs.
And you must f*ing joking.

But being pragmatic aren’t we just the Party of Utterly Pissed Off Women?

The basic common sense party?
The critical thinking party?
The get a grip ffs party?

I'm for it.

I definitely don’t want to lead the party (we’ll need a name of course) but I unashamedly bid to be Justice Secretary.

We'll need to form our own political party for this and other women's issues. Ridiculous? Maybe. Maybe not.

I agree. I think a party that genuinely committed to sorting out law and order would do very well with the electorate. I doubt it will be Labour.

Sometimes getting a response is less important that actually demonstrating that there are other views. Anyway you can write to MPs if they have government roles about that role. Although they probably wont even see it if their staff do their job they should be kept informed of any issues that come up a lot.

Burnham has been boasting of good meetings with a man found by a jury to be a sex offender and wants to give our resources to Saudi. He clearly doesn't .

(MPs are unlikely to respond to people who are not constituents)

(Mine doesn't even report to constituents, but thats another story)

MP for Cirencester is Roz Savage. Constituents could contact her.

members.parliament.uk/member/5352/contact

This sounds good to me. Especially given the state of the existing parties.

I have absolutely no clue.

There was a motive i.e. the rejection, planning with a knife and following her and he stabbed her multiple times. So I don't see why CPS didn't prosecute GBH with intent - i.e. he intended to do serious harm.

Sentencing reports can sometimes shed light, but I don't know how to find them for unnamed juveniles.

It's not the first case where I've been baffled by the CPS going for a seemingly lower charge. Unfortunately, unless you're a victim, they don't have to explain themselves.