Father beats up TA and avoids jail??

[crystalgall]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408364/Violent-father-beat-primary-school-teaching-assistant-revenge-attack-told-son-fighting-playground-avoids-jail.html

I will admit to having no knowledge of the criminal justice state but I am confused as to how someone admits to violently assaulting another person, the judge says it was a deliberate act of violence and yet there is no jail sentence?

As a teacher this is terrifying. Imagine having a parent beat you up because all you did was tell off their child and then they don't even get punished? Great lesson for the poor child. Already having a violent father, also being violent in the playground and then seeing that violence isn't punished.

Anyone else shocked?

Danger to the public, and now let's wait for other assaults on teachers because the criminals will know they'll avoid prison... sigh.

Why don't we fine the wealthy criminals millions of pounds such as the drink-driving footballers, the tax-dodgers, the fiddling MP's (as well as imprisoning them), so that we can afford to keep the public safe from scum like this? That's what I don't understand.

How the hell can a man beat a defenceless woman unconscious and get away with a suspended sentence for ABH Actual Bodily Harm ?

The judge made no mention of requiring him to agree to counselling or medical treatment. That should have been a minimum.
She was brutally beaten and left unconscious for a passer-by to find. Why not the more serious offence of GBH Grievous Bodily Harm ?

If he genuinely has "undiagnosed schizophrenia" which was just discovered before trial then this judge has decided to leave him untreated, to beat up the next TA who tells his DS to stop fighting (and we can see where the kid learned this behaviour)

The TA may be going to appeal against the light sentence. I hope she succeeeds.

I wonder if it would have resulted in a custodial sentence if the victim had been a middle-class white teacher from the school, or the head teacher, rather than 'just' a TA who is also a local parent....

Ok, let's be clear as to what has happened here. BigChocFrenzy is very wide of the mark in asserting that the judge did not require him to agree to medical treatment. The judge did indeed impose a medical treatment requirement. Some of the other posts are also incorrect.

As some have pointed out this is legally a custodial sentence. He has been sentenced to one year in jail. However he is not going to jail immediately as the sentence has been suspended for one year.

In addition to this he has been sentenced to 100 hours community service, put on probation and subjected to a restraining order.

The suspended sentence order also includes a requirement that he undertakes treatment for his paranoid schizophrenia. If he fails to do so he will go back to court for sentencing which is likely to mean going to jail.

Given the information available I think the judge regarded this as a Category 2 ABH offence. Given his mental disorder, the fact he was acting alone and the lack of any weapon (as far as I can tell from the press reports) that seems about right. Under the sentencing guidelines a Category 2 offence has a sentencing range of low level community order to 51 weeks in custody so the actual sentence is right at the top of the available range. For a Category 2 offence the guidelines suggest a strong presumption in favour of a suspended sentence if a custodial sentence is passed.

It is possible the judge regarded this as a Category 1 offence but positioned it towards the bottom of the sentencing range due to his mental disorder, lack of any weapon, etc. That would result in the same sentence but it is less likely the custodial element would be suspended.

One can, of course, argue that the current sentencing guidelines are wrong. However, given the current guidelines the sentence does not immediately appear to be unduly lenient based on the information in the press. The prosecution, of course, know what evidence was presented in court so are well placed to judge whether the sentence is unduly lenient and hence whether to appeal.

I wonder if it would have resulted in a custodial sentence if the victim had been a middle-class white teacher from the school, or the head teacher, rather than 'just' a TA who is also a local parent....

He has got a custodial sentence. However, I'll take your comment as wondering if he would have gone to jail immediately rather than face a suspended sentence.

The judge must follow the sentencing guidelines unless there is very strong justification for stepping outside them. If the judge goes outside the sentencing guidelines without adequate justification the sentence will be overturned on appeal. If the facts are the same the outcome should be the same regardless of the identity of the victim. If the attack was racially motivated then yes, the sentence would have been higher and he may have faced immediate custody. But if there was no evidence of racial motivation I would still expect to see a suspended sentence.

I didn't see the requirement for treatment in the report, but if that's the case that is at least one thing right.

Is a suspended sentence really normal for someone beating a defenceless person unconscious ? The TA has said how her life has been devastated and she lives in fear now.
And whatever you say, suspended is NOT a jail sentence. Even when they breach the conditions, they may still not go to jail.

It may be that for all you associated with the court process or legal professional this case looks fine, nothing to see, move on there.
For most of us who are ordinary members of the public, it bloody stinks !

A green light to any parent who disagrees with teacher or TA - just kick their head in and walk away laughing at the system.

There always seems a reason why brutal men can get away with a comparative slap on the wrist after seriously harming women.
So they'll continue doing it.

minifingerz, I wondered the same thing actually .

And hea walking the street. You'd better hope to God you don't accidentally jostle him in the supermarket.

The TA may be going to appeal against the light sentence. I hope she succeeds.

The scheme for referring unduly lenient sentences only applies to a few of the most serious charges; not to ABH. So she won't be. Blame the CPS for under-charging.

Sorry if that is bad news.

Is a suspended sentence really normal for someone beating a defenceless person unconscious

There are three categories of ABH. Category 1 is cases where there is greater harm to the victim and higher culpability. Category 3 is cases where there is less harm to the victim and low culpability. Category 2 is for cases that fall in between - either less harm but high culpability or greater harm but low culpability. Category 3 cases never lead to a custodial sentence. Category 1 cases always lead to a custodial sentence which is rarely suspended. Category 2 cases will generally lead to a custodial sentence which will usually be suspended.

And whatever you say, suspended is NOT a jail sentence

I understand your point of view. Legally it is classed as a custodial sentence. Even if he doesn't actually serve any time in jail it goes on his record as a custodial sentence.

For most of us who are ordinary members of the public, it bloody stinks !

I am not here to defend the sentencing guidelines, merely to point out that the judge followed them. If you feel strongly you should campaign to get the guidelines changed.

A green light to any parent who disagrees with teacher or TA - just kick their head in and walk away laughing at the system

Absolute rubbish. On the facts of the case I am quite sure that had it not been for his mental disorder he would have gone straight to jail.

So f he has a mental disorder that makes him so dangerous to society, why he has been set free rather than sectioned?

A green light to any parent who disagrees with teacher or TA - just kick their head in and walk away laughing at the system.

Clearly not, unless that parent is confident that they will be diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. And having a suspended sentence with a medical treatment requirement, community service, probation and a restraining order is not being allowed to walk away laughing.

TheTiger, no-one is sectioned if there are other treatment options.

I think that when people are talking about the fact that this was premeditated, they are missing the significance of this man's paranoid schizophrenia. The defence is not that this was a sudden momentary loss of control akin to the normal provocation defence, but that his illness was such that he could not judge his actions or reactions and it made him believe that the TA's "offence" was such that he needed to avenge his son.

The judge will certainly have had detailed psychiatric reports and no doubt if they said this man posed a continuing danger he would have considered something in the nature of a hospital order.

The courts don't section people. That requires two doctors and an Approved Mental Health Professional. The court can make a hospital order. There are clear requirements on the evidence to be provided to allow the court to make such a decision. Either the required evidence was not provided or the court decided that a hospital order was inappropriate given the facts of the case. Someone who attacks someone else due to a mental disorder is not necessarily a danger to society.

On the subject of suspended sentences, the courts can suspend any custodial sentence of between 14 days and 2 years (6 months if the case is heard in the magistrates' court). The courts prefer to use suspended sentences for first offenders where possible as the re-offending rate is lower than it is for first offenders who serve time in prison.

If the conditions attached to the suspended sentence are breached, assuming it was imposed in the Crown Court, the court will usually activate the sentence in whole or in part. If they do not they must fine the offender or modify the sentence by making the community requirements more onerous, extending the probation period and/or extending the time for which the suspended sentence applies. The reason the sentence is not automatic is to give the courts discretion to act appropriately. So in this case if the offender is convicted of stealing a 50p bar of chocolate (I'm deliberately being extreme here) it is unlikely the sentence would be activated but if he assaults someone else he will almost certainly go to prison.

Returning to this case and getting away from the stuff about Category 1, 2 and 3 offences, the crucial point is that he was charged with ABH rather than GBH. This means that, although the TA's injuries look bad, the prosecuting authorities decided they were not bad enough to sustain a charge of GBH. Without seeing the medical reports on which they based their decision it is impossible to say whether or not they were right. If he had been convicted of GBH he would almost certainly have gone to prison even though it was, apparently, a first offence. A first offender facing a charge of ABH will only go to jail in the most serious of cases.