Home Politics & Debate

British Justice Does it again - jails the victim and free's the crimminal

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    Thanks, that's very useful information. Do you have a source?

    Judge John Reddihough, who passed the sentence.

    His summing up :
    Munir Hussain, on the night of 3 September 2008, you and your family were the victims of a serious and wicked offence, when at least three masked men entered your home armed with knives and threatened you and your family, possibly intent on robbing you.

    It was undoubtedly a terrifying experience for you and your family. The bravery of your teenage son in escaping from the house and raising the alarm and your courage in tackling one of the masked raiders, Waled Salem, brought the ordeal for your family quite quickly to an end.

    It is clear that you pursued that invader of your home, Waled Salem, up the road outside and you were joined by others, including your brother and co-defendant Tokeer Hussain.

    Salem was apprehended and cornered in the front garden of ...[another house in Desborough Park Road] and brought to the ground.

    Four men including, as the jury found, the two of you, armed with weapons then proceeded to carry out a dreadful, violent attack upon him when he was defenceless on the ground.

    That attack involved kicking and punching him, stamping upon him and striking him with weapons, including a hockey stick and a cricket bat.

    The witness, Miranda McCloughlin, who was at the window immediately adjacent to where the attack was taking place pleaded with you and the two others to stop, telling you that you were going to kill the man on the ground.

    She was disregarded and the attack continued. She described you and the other two men involved as acting like a pack of animals. It is purely fortuitous that the man Salem was not killed.

    As it was, he suffered a number of fractures, including a skull fracture, and brain damage, giving rise to permanent injury.

    It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to serve the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him.

    The prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Salem.

    However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.

    It may be that some members of the public or media commentators will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.

    However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.

    Of course, it is to be noted that it was never suggested by you or on your behalf in the trial that there was any justification for the attack upon Salem. You simply claimed that you were not involved in it.

    The jury was sure that you were involved and convicted you of this serious offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause such harm.

    I take very much into account that hitherto you were both men of excellent character and have made enormous contributions to your local community and involved yourselves in various voluntary organisations.

    Many character witnesses, testimonials and references spoke to those matters. You are both successful and hardworking in your business and are devoted family men.

    I bear that in mind together with all of the other matters put forward so eloquently on your behalf and contained in the reports before me. I take account of the oral evidence of Dr Joseph which I have heard in relation to Munir Hussain.

    I have regard to the effect this case has had and will have upon you and your families and your business.

    The sentencing guidelines for this offence, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment, indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more should be imposed after a trial.

    Whilst I must have regard for those guidelines, I also have to have in mind the particular and unusual circumstances of this case and all the mitigating factors.

    I have had regard, too, to relevant reported Court of Appeal cases, including R v Smith (2009), R v Fazal (2005), R v Lindley (2009) and A-G Reference 83 of 2001.

    Immediately before you both committed this offence, Munir Hussain and his family had been the victims in their own home of a very serious and frightening criminal offence.

    In my judgement, there was a high degree of provocation which led to this offence being committed and to you both acting out of character.

    On the other hand, you involved yourselves in a terribly violent and unnecessary assault on Waled Salem which amounted to a revenge attack and you ignored pleas to discontinue what you were doing.

    This case is a tragedy for you and your families. Sadly, I have no doubt that my public duty requires me to impose immediate prison sentences of some length upon you.

    This is in order to reflect the serious consequences of your violent acts and intent and to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands and/or carry out revenge attacks upon a person who has offended against them.

    The prison sentences I pass upon you are very significantly shorter than would have otherwise been imposed by reason of the degree of provocation involved and the other strong mitigating factors to which I have referred.

    In your case Munir Hussain, the sentence is 30 months imprisonment and in your case Tokeer Hussain, 39 months imprisonment.

    I have imposed a longer sentence on you Tokeer Hussain because in my judgement you were subject to less provocation than your brother, not having been a direct victim of the crime committed by Salem and the other men who invaded his home.

    You will each be required to serve up to one half of the term imposed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course, the daily mail crowd ignore the following
    It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to serve the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him.

    The prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Salem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The judge's sentencing pretty much sums up my sentiments.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »
    To me this is tony martin all over again,

    Indeed. Which is why it's a good thing that justice has prevailed, again.

    It's simply not acceptable to beat the shit out of someone, or shoot them in the back, because they have committed a crime against you.

    That's what the Police are for.

    (And yes, you can read that in more than one way ;) )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I love it the right wing press is parading around a man's past convictions as if it somehow justifies almost killing someone in a horrifically violent revenge attack.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    DG wrote: »
    This has more details on the 54 previous convictions

    What does it matter?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    What does it matter?

    Yes it does .. some people might be interested to know what the convictions were for .. for all you knew from the very first post he was convicted 50+ times for mail fraud, or just shoplifting, or speeding, etc

    If you don't care then good for you but some people might have a passing interest to know what sort of things he did in the past and how much time he spend in and out of jail over that time.

    In the USA some states have the 3 Strikes and you're out rule - if that rule was inthe UK this man would have been in prison and none of this would ever have happened in the first place .. so YES it does matter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    DG wrote: »
    Yes it does

    You started this topic with the view that Hussain going to prison was a miscarriage of justice. It wasn't. He fully deserves his sentance.

    The other blokes criminal history is another issue. Maybe he should have been locked up sooner and for longer, but that doesn't mean Hussain is any more justified in what he did.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive .. It is not for you to try to attempt to read my mind and tell me what I did or did not intend to show .. so please keep such opinions to yourself

    And if you reread my very first post I specifically referred to the criminal and asked why was he even allowed to be roaming the streets ...

    If you're not interested in the details of the guy with over 50 convictions then stop posting in this thread. Some people might be and for them I posted the extra information I came across ..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG, it really isn't for you to decide who is or isn't allowed to post in this thread.

    I'm not aware of anyone here whose arguing that what happened was a tragedy and could have probably been prevented if the people were responsible were in jail. But clearly, given the way this case is being used as a political football, the debate is going to concern the wider issues than just one point that everyone agrees on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am asking Skive not to post in this thread if his sole intent is to tell me what is on my own mind when he has no way to know that.

    He asked the question did it matter? and I said YES and gave the reason why I believe it matters ..

    I simply posted a link that gave the details of what those 50+ convictions were for - I'm sure many people are interested to know and as I have shown in other countries this man would have been in jail and as such none of these circumstances would have occurred in the same exact way because he wouldn't have be out in the public to begin with.

    When I posted the link detailing what those 50+ convictions were for - I did not express any further opinions, or make any further statements. I just gave the new information and simply provided a link to the source. Nothing more and nothing less.

    It would appear Skive took it upon himself to read something into it more then it was - i.e. the provision of further information which was not known at the time I made my very first post and which is of interest to some people.

    Skive asked a simple question "Does it Matter" and he got a detailed answer ... it appeared he wasn't happy that someone even dare answer him and so he started to tell that person (myself) what was on their own minds... which he has no way of knowing.

    If he wants to state facts then that's great

    If he wants to provide his own opinions of what he thinks, then that great as well.

    .. but if he wants to tell other people what is in their own minds then that's just plain rude.

    to quote Skive
    Skive wrote: »
    You started this topic with the view that Hussain going to prison was a miscarriage of justice....

    Skive appears to be telling me what is on my mind .. which he couldn;t know...

    Skive has stated that I started this topic with the view Hussain going to prison was a miscarriage of justice...

    Not once in the first post have I mentioned Hussain, a miscarriage of justice or anything else to do with Hussain .. I provided a link to the article ... I stated the facts of the case (that the person with 50+ convictions goes free whilst the other person goes to jail for 30 months), I stated what some people might think, and I asked the question Why a man with over 50+ convictions even on the street to begin with ...

    Not once have I even mention Hussain in that first post .. so I consider Skive's post both personally rude to tell me the contents of my own mind and inaccurate.

    My original post was not about a miscarriage of justice it was about Why a man with 50+ convictions is roaming the streets in the first place and not inside a prison cell.

    The only opinion I have stated in my first post is

    "Someone with that many convictions should be permanently tagged with a tracker at the very least so they can be watched 24/7"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think he's probably making the judgement based on your title -

    'British Justice Does it again - jails the victim and free's the crimminal'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I certainly don't want to speculate what someone else was thinking ... ;)

    But as far as the body of my first posts goes my mind totally boggles when I even hear that someone with 50+ convictions is anywhere but in jail .. I was more then curious to know what sort of crimes they were ... once I found that information I simply posted a link to it so others who might be interested could see for themselves ..
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    Jim V wrote: »
    I think he's probably making the judgement based on your title -

    'British Justice Does it again - jails the victim and free's the crimminal'

    I was.
    DC wrote:
    I stated the facts of the case (that the person with 50+ convictions goes free whilst the other person goes to jail for 30 months)

    Actually you refered to Hussain as the victim and Salem as the crimminal.

    From your 1st and 2nd posts it's clear you don't consider Hussain to be anything but the victim, and therefore took it that you thought the prison sentance wasn't deserved i.e it was a miscarriage of justice.

    At no point in the thread have you recognised that fact that Hussain also comitted a crimminal act and that Salem was also a victim.

    You went as far to say that in the US Hussain would have probably got a 'pat on the back', and I took that to mean that's the outcome you would have liked (why else mention it?)
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Suspension of the sentance would have done for me. I don't question that he should not have beaten the cunt within an inch of his life.

    However, can anyone here honestly say that they would have acted differently?

    You come home, your wife and kids have been held hostage, threatened with a knife (which you probably assume the assailant has every intention of using if you don't do what he says), he tries to escape, you catch him. I can honestly say that if that had happened to me, I would also want to punish the fucker something fierce, including trying to clear the square leg boundary with his head.

    This article in the Times sums up my feelings:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6962804.ece

    Basically, if he knew that the justice system would punish him adequately, perhaps he might have been restrained. However, since we know that he probably would have got an impotent sentance, only would have served half of it, and would have been back to his old ways so fast it would make your head spin, perhaps Mr Hussain thought that it was best to teach the fucker a lesson.

    I don't condone what he did. But then again, I'm saying that in a rational state of mind. I don't condone it, but I imagine if I were in the same situation, it would take every ounce of my strength and will power not to want to do the same thing.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    Suspension of the sentance would have done for me.

    It has to be a custodial sentance for me. Vigilantism has to be punished severely otherwise the whole rule of law collapses.
    However, can anyone here honestly say that they would have acted differently?

    No. I may well have done the same. Doesn't mean I'd have been right. I don't really see that as an argument.
    Basically, if he knew that the justice system would punish him adequately, perhaps he might have been restrained.

    Yet you argue that Hussain should have got a suspended sentance? Sounds a little hypocritical to me.

    Salem should have faced tougher punishments for his numerous crimes before this case, but I don't think that should have any bearing on the sentance for the crime Hussain commited.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One criminal should be behind bars for ever, one should get a suspended sentence.

    Please explain the thinking behind that...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Basically, if he knew that the justice system would punish him adequately, perhaps he might have been restrained. However, since we know that he probably would have got an impotent sentance, only would have served half of it, and would have been back to his old ways so fast it would make your head spin, perhaps Mr Hussain thought that it was best to teach the fucker a lesson.

    I would certainly be tempted to beat the shit out of any burglar if I was in the same situation, but a more sensible option would be to restrain the burglar until the police came. Good on Munir for tackling the guy, but he should have put a bit more thought into the potential consequenses of beating the man to the point where he was brain damaged.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    Yes it does .. some people might be interested to know what the convictions were for .. for all you knew from the very first post he was convicted 50+ times for mail fraud, or just shoplifting, or speeding, etc

    Until his most recent offence he's never actually hurt anybody. He's just a sticky fingered twat.
    Yes he deserves prison because he obviously can't keep his hands to himself, but the other guy went completely over the top. He wasn't defending himself or his family, he was getting revenge. Ultimately he was convicted by a jury of his peers, who obviously didn't believe he was defending himself either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Ultimately he was convicted by a jury of his peers, who obviously didn't believe he was defending himself either.

    Officer, I think you are misunderstanding the facts.

    He did not claim to be defending himself. He claimed not to be present when the offence took place.

    His defence was a factual one, and not a legal one, which leads me to believe that he has no grounds for appeal. Unless,of course, he could somehow show that all the witnessses against him were unreliable.

    With hindsight, based on public support of sorts, he may well be of the opinion that he should have admitted the offence and then claimed self defence. Assuming, of course, that he did actually commit the offfence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Officer, I think you are misunderstanding the facts.

    He did not claim to be defending himself. He claimed not to be present when the offence took place.

    His defence was a factual one, and not a legal one, which leads me to believe that he has no grounds for appeal. Unless,of course, he could somehow show that all the witnessses against him were unreliable.

    With hindsight, based on public support of sorts, he may well be of the opinion that he should have admitted the offence and then claimed self defence. Assuming, of course, that he did actually commit the offfence.

    Well he has been found guilty of the offence unless he is found innocent at a later appeal then he has committed the offence.

    I think the reason why the defence claimed that he was not present was that he had gone beyond self defence with reasonable force and had beaten the shit out of someone and caused serious brain damage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Officer, I think you are misunderstanding the facts.

    He did not claim to be defending himself. He claimed not to be present when the offence took place.

    His defence was a factual one, and not a legal one, which leads me to believe that he has no grounds for appeal. Unless,of course, he could somehow show that all the witnessses against him were unreliable.

    With hindsight, based on public support of sorts, he may well be of the opinion that he should have admitted the offence and then claimed self defence. Assuming, of course, that he did actually commit the offfence.


    Someone already pointed that out to me. Him claiming to have not even have been there just makes him look even worse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if they chased, caught up and gave a bit of a kicking, they probably wouldn't be going to prison

    however smashing someone's head in with a cricket bat is close enough to attempted murder so yeh, they got what they deserve

    loooks like the burgular avoided prison cause they're now suffering severe brain damage so can't have their medical needs met by a prison....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This thread shows how easily you can get the wrong end of the stick when making decisions about stuff like this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would certainly be tempted to beat the shit out of any burglar if I was in the same situation, but a more sensible option would be to restrain the burglar until the police came. Good on Munir for tackling the guy, but he should have put a bit more thought into the potential consequenses of beating the man to the point where he was brain damaged.

    Of course that's what should have happened, but that's in the cold light of day speaking as a rational being. I think it would be very hard to restrain him, having just seen him threaten your wife and kids with a knife. I'd personally want to give the fucker some punishment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thunderstruck - there was one burglar they caught, there was a group of them hitting him with weapons, when he was on the floor. If it was my family I would want to hurt the guy, of course, but as soon as he was out the door and running down the street my first instinct would be to make sure my friends / family were ok and to call the police.

    But in this case he was running away and they chased him, got him to the floor, and then beat him. Would that be ok if it was a 13 year old punk stealing fags from a co op? Of course not. So the only difference is, the crime seems more justifiable if the victim is unlikeable. I'm sure people wouldn't cry if it was a peadophile caught and then beat within an inch of his life.

    But that's not how the law works and no amount of moaning changes that. Unless you want to bring in defence under the law that it was a crime of passion. But then if a jealous husband murders his wife if he discovers she was cheating on him, the law would have to reflect he was 'upset' and so not completely culpable for his actions.

    You either have absolute responsibility for your actions or you don't, if you don't then you really open the floodgates because then what crimes do you take responsibility for? A guy in a pub hits someone with a glass... well, he was drunk for one and pissed off for two because the music was crap. It becomes impossible to administer any sense of law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course that's what should have happened, but that's in the cold light of day speaking as a rational being. I think it would be very hard to restrain him, having just seen him threaten your wife and kids with a knife. I'd personally want to give the fucker some punishment.

    That isn't justice, that is revenge and you should never get the two mixed up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I haven't read the whole thread, but to me the law as it stands is perfectly suitable.

    For a householder to be convicted they have to stand in front of a jury and come off worse than an intruder - that has to be difficult. I trust juries to understand 'reasonable force' even if the Mail seems to deliberately misunderstand it.
Sign In or Register to comment.