Court Report: 10th August 2020 @ Snaresbrook Crown Court
I’m in Court 12 before Her Honour Judge C English for the Sentencing of a Mr ‘IO’. He pleaded guilty to two counts in July 2019 and sentencing was been delayed until today for reports to be carried out.
Count 1 is Actual Bodily Harm against a Ms “BN”
Count 2 is Assaulting police officers
It’s May 20th 2019 at 5.30pm and Ms BN is shopping at the Sainsbury’s in Stratford. She’s walking down an aisle and the defendant is walking towards her. He has his elbows out and knocks her as he passes.
Expecting an apology, the prosecution says she “taps him on the shoulder” although the defendant claimed to police that she instead kicked him. In any event she receives no immediate response from IO.
Later on, having finished her shopping Ms BN is queueing by the self-service checkouts and notices the defendant staring at her. The next thing she feels is “a powerful punch” knocking her to the ground. Now on top of her IO continues to punch her repeatedly.
The incident is shown to the court from CCTV footage from the store and shows staff members and the public assisting immediately although they have great difficulty restraining him.
The victim complains of bruising to the face and a deep cut to her right index finger.
When two police officers arrive he’s sat calmly in a holding room and “was fixated by being kicked”.
There is a discussion about the next steps and because of the extent of BN’s injuries the Police say he’s going to the police station. He insists he isn’t and starts getting aggressive pushing the officers. He charges at them and starts throwing furniture around the room. Tasers are deployed repeatedly in an attempt to subdue him.
The court is shown some of the incident from the body worn CCTV. We’re not shown it all, but we’re told the struggle continues for some 14 minutes. Ultimately it requires some 6 officers to restrain and carry him out of the building.
In a Victim Impact Statement Ms BN says she had to take a week off from work and lives in fear of seeing the man again.
The defence submit that it’s not the first time he’s barged people out of the way and they claim it comes from a sense of feeling provoked.
By way of mitigation the court is told he was sectioned in 1991, 2002 and 2014. Regrettably, any underlying problems were not investigated so after a short time he’s deemed fit then released. This moment at court was the first time he was diagnosed with a condition that he is now receiving treatment for.
The defence request suspension of sentence stating IO is high risk for covid-19 and claim the decision reached in the case of Manning as supporting their assertion.
“The current conditions in prisons represent a factor which can properly be taken into account in deciding whether to suspend a sentence.”
The judge quickly replies that of course she’s familiar “Every day I hear the case of Manning”
It turns out to be quite a complex case and has already overrun it’s allocated slot. To consider the sentence the court adjourns until 14.00.
However one must credit the judge who rather delaying the next case – the 12.30 sentencing of Mr “RF” decides to hear it before lunch. For completeness that case is slightly easier to decide – drugs are involved and during discussions there’s disagreement between counsel over the category – 3 v 4. This has consequences so the court agrees to a request to adjourn for 14 days to allow a basis of plea to be submitted at which point reports can be carried out.
After what must have been quite a rushed lunch the judge it ready to delivery her sentence of Mr IO at 14.00.
IO is told his behaviour “was nothing short of disgraceful”. It was “Brutal, shocking, out of proportion”. He was “entirely to blame” and reportedly had bumped into 4 people in the month prior to the incident and was well aware of what he was doing.
The court decides the offence is category 2 within the sentencing guidelines and warranted a custodial sentence as it was so serious. “We cannot have people dishing out violence”
The judge recalls that the offence was committed over a year ago and there had been no problems with the defendant since. He did however “have a great deal of work to do” in relation to his diagnosis.
She recalls at a previous hearing on Aug 28th 2019 where the defendant was told he “sailed past the custody threshold”. Taking into account his remorse and the various reports the court decides to suspend the sentence as “immediate custody would not serve a useful purpose. ” He’s warned though that the sentence would be reactivated if any of the orders were breached. These include:
200hrs Unpaid Work
3 months electronic monitoring
And an order preventing access to Sainsbury’s for 5 years.
Having heard all the submissions, I felt this was a very complex case and I’m glad my career choices will never result in me sitting in the judge’s shoes.
There’s one nagging feeling that is left with me though – I wonder just how much of the hearing and the complicated difficulties eloquently summed up by the learned Judge will be relayed back to the main victim, or to the police officers, or indeed the brave staff members at Sainsbury’s who stepped into help?
I wonder what Ms BN thinks 14 months on from the incident, having presumable been told he “sailed past the custody threshold” when she receives the news that he walked free from court.
I wonder indeed.
Mouse in the Court 