28 year old woman assault's 11 year old girl.

[NurseButtercup]

This woman punched this 11 year old child, left bruises and drew blood. Pleaded guilty to assault, but yet avoids a custodial sentence and is handed a six month community order and a £120 fine plus costs of £350.

I'm really puzzled by this sentence - please could a mnetter who understands our justice system guidelines explain the rationale behind this sentence?

I've provided a link to the article that I've just read below:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boxer-known-as-secret-assassin-is-fined-120-for-beating-schoolgirl-11-ks3mf3qdw?shareToken=a5a48f774dc1ea5661c909a7b69749d2

Reanimated - I wondered that as well. Was the woman defending her own child?

I think I’d move if I could. Jade sounds unhinged - why on earth is she shouting out a car window at an 11 year old?

WeirdAnd, they were probably investigated for ABH but charging standards would result in a charge for assault by beating only. A broken nose is not normally a fracture but a bruised septum or soft tissue damage.

but I doubt that many adult women would just randomly hit a kid so there must have been some sort of incident

True, but I came across a mother who thought it was appropriate to email my son directly in a very threatening manner using a school email account. It was so staggeringly inappropriate & such an obvious safeguarding risk that dh and I couldn’t quite believe it had happened. She was also completely incorrect in what she thought had happened but there didn’t seem to be any reasoning with her. We let the school sort it out, told DS to have nothing to do with her son (they didn’t have to see each other so that wasn’t an issue - shame really as he seemed a sweet kid but we didn’t feel DS was safe around the mother) & ignored the repeated phone calls & texts. I was about to block the number when they stopped.

Hence my comment about moving. As I explained to DS you a) can’t predict how people will react & b) not all people are reasonable. I’d really want my child away from this mother. Even if the child has done something an adult shouting out the car window at an 11 year old is not behaving appropriately (whether or not a punch followed).

In terms of prosecution my severely disabled, very vulnerable, son has been punched twice (that we know of) by carers. Once in the face & once hard enough to leave bruises (in that case while he was a child). There were witnesses (who reported) in both cases.

Neither was charged. They lost their jobs but can presumably still work in care.

The crux of the matter is, that she an adult, assulted a child, that is disgusting and unacceptable. No excuse.

That's dreadful Devilish. What reason was given?

Rooney It doesn't necessarily follow that were trial evidence. She has no black or bloodshot eye in that picture.

It was fresh! Nobody's black eye is instant ffs

Re. putting the picture in the paper, there's a peculiar loophole in the normal rules about children's anonymity in the media which means that provided the parent says they consent (or indeed, even seeks the publicity) it's perfectly legal for a child's pictures to be plastered all over the media.

Finfintyfint - no idea - he has learning disabilities & it just seems another area of unequal treatment for those with LD’s. I wasn’t surprised with the second (adult) case because the person reporting said he thought the person punching did it without thinking and I guessed they wouldn’t prosecute.

In the first case, when he was a child, it was actually on two occasions, left bruising, two witnesses and my son’s SW was convinced there would be a prosecution. The witnesses weren’t even interviewed properly. It was bizarre.

My son is non-verbal so he may have been punched/hit on other occasions. On another occasion a staff member reported what could have been bullying of my son by staff (could have been nothing, but could have been very serious) and we didn’t even find out until 3 months after the incident (by which time there had been no investigation at all). Eventually there was an investigation 5 or 6 months after the event. (Pointless).

So the fact that this even got to court is a sign that it was taken seriously. The mother shouldn’t have told her that there would be a custodial sentence (although maybe she had been advised that would be the case - I know my son’s SW was staggered nothing happened when he was punched as a child).

Most random squirting of blood product ever.

Judge saw CCTV, they saw exactly how much force was used and what state the 11 yo was in.

Obviously it isn't OK but I imagine fabricating evidence hasn't helped their moral high ground

Assault can mean pouring a drink over someone, cutting their hair or pushing them slightly. I've not seen the link, but if we passed sentence every time a child was assaulted by an adult, prisons would be even more overflowing than they are already.

On the face of it I agree it looks horrific but as TheBeastInMsRooneysRoom points out we're not privy to the court room evidence and shouldn't conduct a trial via social media.

The mother says the child's nose was broken and she had a bloodshot eye.

I'm an A&E nurse and have seen many such injuries. The worst bruising and swellng doesn't come out straight away. Looking closely I can see some swelling and slight bruising on the bridge of the nose, the left eye is slightly puffy and in the outer corner there is a mark on the white of the eye.

Broken noses can bleed a lot and the pattern of the blood splashes looks consistent with the story to me.

Reading the link, there was CCTV footage which the judge reviewed - I think therefore that he had the best basis on which to sentence her.
If he didn't think it deserved a custodial sentence, then it's not that bad.
I also find the blood-covered picture of the child a bit unlikely! I've seen people punched in the nose a few times and the blood doesn't usually go all down the arms like that, it just spatters on the face and then drips (or pours) down their fronts.

But in the end, that's all speculation - the judge saw the CCTV footage so he has the most knowledge of what actually happened (apart from the woman and the girl involved, of course).

It might reassure you to know devilish that even if no criminal case was brought the correct procedure is for employers to inform the vetting and barring service (previously POCA/POVA, then CRB, now DBS) if they have fired someone because of abusive behaviour towards a vulnerable person.

They will then be put on the 'barred' list for working in regulated employment (e.g carework) and it would become an offence if someone employed them.

Part of any outcome of a social services safeguarding investigation should now include a check if any individuals involved need referring to the barred list.

Thanks hatgirl - I was told by chid SW that would be the case but then adult SW said it wasn’t (she was the one who didn’t tell us about the safeguarding or investigate though...)

I hope the employers referred. They were taken over by a pretty shocking corporate so god knows whether it will have happened.

But safeguardings are weird. At the same time as the punch in the face and the potential bullying reported by staff, School reported bruising including some in strange places (eg stomach and back). That was substantiated (it existed) but no action taken because no-one would admit to it.

WTAF?

I’m afraid I don’t have much confidence in then processes to protect vulnerable people (elderly , child or disabled) so wouldn’t be surprised by this outcome even if everything is taken at face value and we assume the blood is real and she was punched.

(And we did bring this all up with appropriate people and organisations, mainly to try and protect others - but nothing really happened).

Quite apart from the fact that the photograph of the child is quite clearly contrived - bruising may not appear immediately, but clear signs of physical damage do, and that blood spatter is entirely consistent with being deliberately daubed on - isn't the question really what the mum thinks she's getting out of publishing a photo like that. Let's be clear - those particular newspapers weren't hanging around the court waiting for the outcome of what is clearly a minor event when there are thousands of those daily! The mother personally contacted those newspapers, fed them a line and contrived photograph so that SHE could have her moment of glory in the spotlight at her daughter's expense. And, no doubt, to get back at her former friend in a pitiful revenge story.

If there was anything like the warped versions that are circulating here, then there would have been a custodial sentence. Evidence that we are best leaving justice to courts and not howling mobs of people who know nothing about the facts!

Common assault is the lowest level of assault that can be prosecuted.
An assault does not need to involve any actual touching - just that the victim was in fear of immediate unlawful violence.
Assault by beating only means that there was some form of physical contact - the word 'beating' does not imply that the victim was beaten up.
Common assault is a summary only matter.
The sentencing guidelines indicate that only the highest category might result in a custodial sentence.

I have formerly worked with victims of assault in the immediate aftermath and that child's blood spatter pattern looks authentic to me. Her left eye is bloodshot, the bleeding has stopped and the area above her top lip has been wiped, as you would if you were pinching a nose to stop the bleeding. There are smudges in the blood and it's mostly a darker shade of red (though this could be the colouring of the photo) which indicates it was starting to dry. And when, in films or for fancy dress, people put fake blood on, they put it on to mimic what blood would do, so if you've seen blood spatters in films etc then, although the effects would be ramped up for dramatic purposes, generally they are done to be as realistic as possible.

The blood pattern is not consistent with a big spontaneous nose bleed, because the child was being assaulted and presumably not standing still - comparisons with a standard nose bleed are redundant imo.

I think Jade Binch's behaviour was disgusting. Any adult assaulting a child should receive a custodial sentence, no matter how full the prisons are. I think if it were a man causing similar injuries he would be more likely to have gone to jail and I think that Jade Binch should have too.

That poor child. Jade Binch is violent and belongs in prison imo.

So many people on this thread watching too much CSI and thinking they're experts 😂

@BoreOfWhabylon and @Fromage are the exception 😊

Custodial should always be the last resort and Judges will take into consideration that the perpetrator in this case is a Mother.

It would be extraordinarily unusual for an injury including a fracture to be charged only as a common assault. At the least a fracture would be charged as an ABH offence and often as the more serious still GBH. It would also be highly unusual for a judge to impose only a fine where a fracture had been caused. Something here does not add up.