Scum Drug dealer effectively let off for throwing bottle at cyclist.

Banjo

Fuelled with Jelly Babies
Location
South Wales
A local cyclist was brought off his bike when a coke bottle thrown at him from a car jammed in the front wheel.
cyclist was badly injured 2 grand ti bike wrecked.

Local rag headline is "Man receives 12 month sentence"


Great you might think until you read the small print and discover the 12 months runs concurrently with a longer sentence he received for dealing heroin.

Am I the only one who thinks concurrent sentences are no sentence at all in effect.
PS THE INFO ABOVE IS INACCURATE, THE SENTENCE IS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY.
APOLOGIES FOR THE CONFUSION.

grrrrr (rant over, carry on.)
 
Last edited:

raleighnut

Legendary Member
Location
On 3 Wheels
No, effectively the ned got off with it, it should have been added on to his sentence :cursing:
 
OP
Banjo

Banjo

Fuelled with Jelly Babies
Location
South Wales
The judge described it as " an act of wanton violence committed for your own amusement"
then went on to say "the use of that bottle was tantamount to the use of a weapon".

The cyclist suffered a broken elbow , suspected broken wrist plus other cuts and bruises.

The scumbag denied it and tried to blame someone else in the car but his dna was recovered from the bottle.

PS THE INFO IN THE FIRST POST IS INACCURATE, THE SENTENCE IS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY.
APOLOGIES FOR THE CONFUSION.
 
Last edited:

Saluki

I've run away with my friends to..
Location
...New Tealandia
Am I the only one who thinks concurrent sentences are no sentence at all in effect.

grrrrr (rant over, carry on.)
Not at all. What is the point of that. It's not like being made to do 2 things at once, time is time. America does do some things right in that respect.
 
OP
Banjo

Banjo

Fuelled with Jelly Babies
Location
South Wales
Just discovered from another source the sentence is consecutive so will be added to end of his existing sentence.
Sorry to have wound everyone up. there is some justice after all..Maybe I should ask a mod to delete this.
 
Last edited:

Arrowfoot

Veteran
Is there some kind of rule or formula that decides on when a sentence becomes concurrent. Never understood it except when there multiple offences and you can't except the bloke to serve 200 years.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
Sentences are often concurrent when more than one charge relates to the same offending.

For example, a banned driver who drives dangerously will be charged with dangerous driving and driving while disqualified.

The dangerous drive might be worth, say, nine months, and the drive disqualified three months.

Those two sentences will usually be ordered to run concurrently, so the defendant gets a total of nine months.

Some people may see the sense in that.

However, there is no doubt defendants can get two for the price of one.

For example, the defendant commits an assault in January, worth three months.

He commits a burglary in March, worth a year.

When he's dealt with for everything a few months later, he may get concurrent sentences - if his barrister comes up with decent mitigation and the judge is not having a bad day.

Equally, the judge might say, correctly, the offences were entirely separate so the sentences should run consecutively.

It's why they are called judges, they exercise judgment.
 
Top Bottom