[Closed] Legal eagles and Good Police of STW assemble; What should happen next?

I hope that the scrote is charged and has his day in court. If not, he'll just assume that he's got away with it and won't change his behaviour.

I'm sure of I punched Mrs Z in the face while pissed I'd be up before the beak in double quick time. Mind you, the legal side of things would be the least of my worries. She is one to bear a grudge........

This is no different in my view.

On whether prison works this is the sort of case where it is easy to argue that the deterent effect of sloting first time offenders justifies custody to send a message to the wider comunity, to an extent that out weighs the detrimental impact of custody on the individual.

This +1

If he gets away with it then that's a green light to every other drunk person, among who'm there will always be one idiot, who will throw a punch.

I suppose it depends how mentally prepared for it you are and I'm no psychiatrist but I'd imagine an unprovoked punch to the face whilst doing your job is going to sit in the back of your mind for quite a long time and affect you.

And there was me thinking that the STW hive disliked prison as a punishment, and thought it should be for rehabilitation only.
How wrong was I?!?

If you punch a paramedic in the face without provocation, are you not in need of rehabilitation?

fin25 - Member

If you punch a paramedic in the face without provocation, are you not in need of rehabilitation?

rehab comes in many forms, a kicking Is one such.

The guideline suggests a starting point of 26 weeks in custody and range of community order to 51 weeks the aggravating features night, drink , medic etc would push up the range the mitigation good character remorse down the range then > 1/3 of for a guilty plea . I assume a broken/ displaced nose requiring surgery is greater harm and there are no factors indicating high culpability as defined in the guidelines.

IANAL but the fact he squared up to the female medic and the victim before assaulting him is to me premeditated or intent. And assault with intent is considered far more serious?.

Is busting someones nose really ABH? I would have guessed that was GBH?

There is a time and place for financial compensation, and this it it. The victims closure of this should be sealed with money.

On whether prison works this is the sort of case where it is easy to argue that the deterent effect of sloting first time offenders justifies custody to send a message to the wider comunity, to an extent that out weighs the detrimental impact of custody on the individual.

Agreed, easy to argue, but not sure it is correct. Is a coked and boozed-up angry 21 year old, who is prone to violence, really going to recollect at 2am what, at best, they may have glanced in a newspaper days before?

Anyhow, a bit off-thread. Apologies OP.

Prison does work.

It may not always or often rehabilitate, it might not even punish in some circumstances where life inside turns out to be better than outside for some, but it 100% protects the general public and ambulance crews from this **** for the 18 months or more that he's locked up, and that's good enough for me.

Decent sentencing might not deter the exact same incident, but it also sends out the message to the paramedic crews and A&E teams that receiving violence should not be an expected part of the role.

And it might have a slight deterrant effect on the people who spit, scratch and punch emergency workers even when they aren't completely pissed up.

I've been drunk on many occasions and never felt the need to punch any of the emergency services in the face. I therefore conclude that alcohol is not sufficient excuse.

I totally agree that it was an incredibly scummy thing to do, but we don't know his character.

But that is exactly what you do know . . . his character is one that can become an unpredictable, abusive and violent person. There is no other way looking at it. In the circumstances described, that was his character and behaviour at that time. Whilst alcohol may be a causal factor, its certainly not an excuse.

University degree or something else, doesn't matter. In fact, its right that that sort of behaviour should receive and later be shown on a criminal record and available for disclosure on job applications. Quite rightly, who would want an employee that could behave in that manner ???

I do hope that he gets some form of criminal justice result that is more that just a caution and that whilst being punitive does offer some restorative learning to the person so he doesn't do it again

Decent sentencing might not deter the exact same incident, but it also sends out the message to the paramedic crews and A&E teams that receiving violence should not be an expected part of the role.

And it might have a slight deterrant effect on the people who spit, scratch and punch emergency workers even when they aren't completely pissed up..

+100 . . . but it won't. people will still get pissed and punch emergency services.

I've been drunk on many occasions and never felt the need to punch any of the emergency services in the face. I therefore conclude that alcohol is not sufficient excuse.

There was a time in my life when my mental health was not what you would describe as stable. I was drunk all the time (not helped by working in a pub) and would regularly start fights, always with men bigger than me and I always got knocked out. Friends have described my behaviour at the time as a bit sad, and many pointed out that I wanted to get kicked in, rather than doing the kicking.
I now work with vulnerable young people, many of whom have quite acute mental illness and emotional instability. Many of these young people get into fights, but I have never witnessed any of them attack someone in such a way without provocation.
If this guy has started a fight with two paramedics, then broke one of their noses without provocation, he needs to be held accountable for his action and take some responsibility. Whatever his mental or emotional state was at the time bears little influence in my opinion, as his actions show a clear intent to hurt others and should be investigated and judged in court.

And there was me thinking that the STW hive disliked prison as a punishment, and thought it should be for rehabilitation only.

Now I do believe in needing much, much better rehabilitation and training rather than lock 'em up approach.

However we have what we have, and this type of incident requires us to apply the law and punishment as it stands.

Irc; who should grab it with both hands?

I was suggesting that if the assailant got offered a caution he should take it as it would be a massive let off. Personally I'd say either a prison sentence or at best conviction and some other disposal would be appropriate.

Prison does work. I was talking to a "client" at my work the other day. Done for murder as a teenager. Served 14 yrs. Was out for 3 years but now recalled to prison under the terms of his life licence after being charged with a serious assault. I'd guess a fair few members of the public have been saved from harm by him while he was inside. Expensive, but if 14 yrs jail doesn't rehabilitate someone at least the public are protected while that person is inside.

Should be getting the jail for that. I would seriously doubt it's the first time he's been a drunken, aggressive prick. Dressing it up as jolly student japes and previously of good character don't mean a lot to me. A guy's been badly injured doing his job.

This +1

Hooray for tough guys! Beating mentally ill people up makes things better! You can always rely on police officers' judgement on who deserves a kicking!

To be honest, the young fella in question is a fine upstanding member of the community now, and would still maintain to this day that he was treated very fairly in all of his dealings with the police

It still amazes me that people do this sort of thing. I have a healthy respect and admiration for our Emergency/Essential Service personnel. I cannot fathom any scenario where I would say a cross word, let alone assault one of their members in the line of duty. We are very quick to rely on them when our luck runs out.

Sorry, but this guy needs a wake up call, a short prison sentence would probably be a good way of administering that.

Oh, and if we're talking legalities, it's essential service, not emergency service.

I stand corrected. Though in Scotland it is emergency services. See Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 for assaults on police, fire, medical, ambulance etc staff.

What should happen next?

jekkyl - Member

What should happen next?

a good kicking in the back of the police van? [/1970'spolicing]

TBH,there is a pecking order in prison based on what you have done,so he may end up getting that.

Agree a short prison sentence is required.

Undoubtedly he deserves a massive scare

Yeah - Send him down and call it a gap year.

I've seen loads of these to-ing and fro-ing matey "I'm OK" tossers who's moods flip just like that. They're the worst - dangerous and unpredictable and I wouldn't want them anywhere near me.

what about compulsory six months sentence for any university student committing a criminal offence?
these establishments do seem to be breeding grounds for tossers

But that is exactly what you do know . . . his character is one that can become an unpredictable, abusive and violent person. There is no other way looking at it.

Absolutely what I was about to say.

A fine upstanding member of society does not have a couple of sherberts and then square up to a female paramedic who's trying to help his mate before launching a violent unprovoked attack on her colleague.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions; if he's the sort of person who does this sort of thing when drunk, he's the sort of person who really wants to do this but retains the composure not to when sober. To wit, he's a nasty, aggressive piece of work. And even if hypothetically that's not the case and it's a total reversal of character when drunk, a fine upstanding member of society would give up drinking.

^This.

Thanks for all the comments. All really appreciated, but actually some really useful stuff been said here, with special mentions to IRC, Siwhite and Crankboy for their useful links and knowledgable input. All will be used to push the ambo service 'Zero Tolerance' policy with a surprisingly reluctant Detective Sergeant, who was definitely minded to go with a conditional caution, with the condition being that the offender attend a 'victim impact' course. Personally I didn't feel that that fitted the crime, although I appreciate that views will differ.

(Hypothetically speaking, of course)

STW, pat yourselves on the back. You've been really helpful, yet again. 8) 8)

Edit;

Oh, and if we're talking legalities, it's essential service, not emergency service.

Anyone?

I hope this doesn't affect Mr Hypotheical too much in the long term. There's zero excuse for punching anyone when pissed, paramedic or not.

I know it's not sentencing guidelines, but can I suggest a lifetime ban from the use of NHS services should also be an appropriate answer. Medical insurance for private care should be the order of the day now, (assuming anyone would take him on).

Quite like that idea, difficult to administer though.

Punch someone in the face in the pub without provocation and you are banned from that pub, the same should apply here.

I'd be interested to know the origins of this 'essential service vs emergency service' thing

IIRC it was a jolly wease thought up during the last period the Tories were in power to de-couple ambulance pay from the formulas which were used to calculate pay rises used for the emergency services

ZERO TOLERANCE OF ATTACKS ON EMERGENCY SERVICES, Theres a clue in their name theyre there in an emergency,and sadly that thug put one of them out of action while getting treated also required ambulance and medical staff to treat the paramedic, all which could be helping people in real distress.

12 months in prison as a gap year, compo payment via small claims to paramedic.

. I'd be interested to know the origins of this 'essential service vs emergency service' thing, and whether it is a) still the case, and b) actually means anything at all.

Take a look at your retirement age and pension compared to the other services.

sounds like "actual bodily harm", Magistrates court, fine/suspended sentence, criminal record, bound over to keep the peace..hopefully

where are you that a DS is managing the investigation into an ABH? Unless it was originally recorded as a GBH?

Did anyone do Gravity Score matrix (computer too slow for me to read/ open every link).

"broken" nose = ABH. Police can't charge ABH, has to go to CPS (but we can caution).

Gravity score for ABH = 3.

We can then use aggravating and mitigating factors (which can only ultimately move score up or down by 1, so some could cancel out).

Possible aggravators:
Offence against Public Servant.
More than one blow.
Vulnerable or defenceless victim.

Possible mitigators:
Impulsive action
Minor injury

Likely to remain at 3 when all considered to which guidance is

"Normally charge but a 'simple' caution (or conditional
caution – may need CPS decision if IO and
exceptional circumstances) may be appropriate if
first offence."

Crucially the advice also says

"It is important to consider the impact of the offence on the victim. Wherever
possible, the victim should be contacted before a decision is made, to establish
their view about the offence, the nature and extent of any harm or loss and its
significance relative to the victim’s circumstances"

so in other words if this hypothetical victim was unhappy or upset about the idea of a conditional caution, this should be considered.

Far be it from me to suggest that a caution produces far less work for a busy police officer as they don't have to complete and submit a file to court, and possibly attend court at a later date.

CTM (3 years as a custody sergeant making police disposal decisions, and now a DS.)

It's my hope is that one day, in events like these, Mr Fisty would have a lifetime loss of his drinking licence.

where are you that a DS is managing the investigation into an ABH? Unless it was originally recorded as a GBH?

And I worked offshore one time with a chap who, it turned out, became violent when he dried out. So far as I knew he didn't have a record. Mr Fisty should, for the benefit of everyone else.

[quote=v8ninety ]
Now, this is an oft repeated 'fact' within ambulance services, and I dare say it was true once upon a time (it must have come from somewhere), but I'm not really sure it's true any more. Certainly Ambulance Service workers are referred to as 'emergency workers' in recent legislation, and in major incident planning they are category 1 responders. I'd be interested to know the origins of this 'essential service vs emergency service' thing, and whether it is a) still the case, and b) actually means anything at all.
Anyone?

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-emergency-workers-obstruction-act-2006 ]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-emergency-workers-obstruction-act-2006[/url]

The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 contains two new offences. First the act makes it an offence to obstruct or hinder certain emergency workers who are responding to emergency circumstances. [b]Emergency workers are defined as firefighters, ambulance workers and those transporting blood, organs or equipment on behalf of the NHS, coastguards and lifeboat crews[/b].

Well if that was in Scotland you'd be charged, reported to the PF, and then at some point up in front of the sheriff. We might keep you in overnight to see him the next day, depending on which custody sergeant is on. And, assuming you were convicted, I'd bet a months pay you'd have a trip to the big house.

Far be it from me to suggest that a caution produces far less work for a busy police officer as they don't have to complete and submit a file to court, and possibly attend court at a later date.

Update on this; Police have (with a bit of prodding, armed with stuff from this thread and a sense of righteous indignation) decided to pass this to the CPS for a charging decision. They are still intimating strongly however that a conditional caution is the most likely outcome; they suggest that the first question that the CPS will ask is "can this be dealt with without prosecuting?" and the answer will lead them to the conditional caution route. I'm going to ring the police officer in question again today and yet again voice both mine and my employers disatisfaction at this route being taken.

One of my biggest concerns is that if this is what the police anticipate, they are only going to put the work in to support that decision. Ie; the case would be scuppered because they haven't gathered the (easy to gather) evidence from witnesses, etc. They have only just asked for consent to see the medical records of the victim! FFS. 😐