Another great day for British “justice” - 2
Nathan Hamilton, aged 24, and 28-year-old Jobari Blake stole jewellery including wedding and engagement rings from their victims before driving them to cashpoints for more money. The pair attacked random women in Wolverhampton and Birmingham, often targeting them as they got into their cars after shopping, between May and June last year.
The sentencing judge at Birmingham Crown Court said at the time the robbers showed callous disregard for the victims in taking the jewellery,
In one case a woman’s plea to be left alone because her husband had cancer was ignored.
One victim was snatched from a supermarket in Wolverhampton, while other was taken from a shopping centre in Perry Barr and several abductions took place in the Handsworth area of Birmingham.
Jail sentences of 10 years were imposed on each of the thugs after they pleaded guilty to five counts of kidnapping and five robberies last September, were yesterday cut to eight years by appeal judges.
Lord Justice Dyson, sitting with Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Maddison at London’s Criminal Appeal Court, cut the sentences by two years each, after saying the previous judge passed sentences that were too long.
Lord Dyson said: “These were carefully planned offences, targeting lone women, and subduing them using violence of necessary.
“Although the physical injuries were not of the most serious kind, the emotional and psychological harm caused was incalculable.
“But despite the gravity of these offences, we have been persuaded that the sentences imposed were too high, taking into account the roles of the two in the offending and the low intelligence and suggestibility of Hamilton.”
Hamilton is of Shakespear Street, Sparkhill, while Blake is of Collymore Avenue, Bromford.
Lord Justice Dyson made the ruling after saying the pair were not the ringleaders of the gang and had not physically harmed any of the victims themselves.
February 26, 2008 at 8:38 am
but but but… they KIDNAPPED people!!
February 26, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Just what is going on?!!
February 26, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Why oh why can’t the judiciary give sentences to run consecutively? If these pond life had abducted several women they should have been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment, starting a new one when the first one expired. Oh yes, I forgot, the judiciary aren’t subject to the same pressures of modern life that the rest of us are.
February 27, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Why do they keep doing this, reducing sentences I mean?
Are thye hearing some sort of evidence that we have not heard ?Do you know what I mean? Some sort of excuse for their behaviour?
I agree with plodnomore they should do a sentence for each offence to run consecutive.
February 27, 2008 at 5:33 pm
So thats eight years for the lot.If they dont kidnap or kill while inside they will be let out after four years so for five kidnappings that works out at about ten months in prison per offence and thats not counting the other robberies.What sort of message is this to all the up and coming low life this country is turning out by the hour?
February 27, 2008 at 10:37 pm
The judges want hanging by there bollocks, unbelievable! Please let there be a revolution soon, sanity has to be brought back one way or another.
I’ve read about the police being armed with tazers recently, sod that, arm the police with shotguns to blow these low life scum away. Am i talking about the criminals or the judges, aint too sure about that one, probably both!
February 28, 2008 at 12:55 am
I wonder if the sentences would have been reduced if the victims had been relatives, friends or members of the same golf club as the appeal court judges??
February 29, 2008 at 9:13 pm
A typical example of court buffoonery from people who have absofuckinglutely no concept of what it’s like to be a victim of a crime
February 29, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Tsk tsk commenters - didn’t you know that the laws have changed apparently today - it’s ok if you terrorised people as long as you’re sorry…
Apparently.
March 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Vigilantes? Not far away I fear!!
March 8, 2008 at 11:52 pm
This happened in Sussex -
A man who savagely beat his gentle landlord to death has been cleared of murder - because he was drunk.
Darren Blackley, 29, kicked, punched and stamped on 50-year-old David Wilson even using a child’s cricket bat in the attack.
But he was found not guilty of murder after a jury accepted that he could not have intended the murder as he was inebriated.
Victims groups and legal experts last night warned the verdict was a “dangerous precedent” which could see thousands of violent criminals using alcohol abuse as an excuse.
March 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Lord Juctice Dyson…. well known within the legal community for making bizarre and totally insane decisions.
Wonderful when you’ve got a senile Judiciary isnt it…
March 29, 2008 at 8:55 am
We live in a society where the only people who are important are the poor criminals, who for social, mental or drug related reasons cannot possibly be guilty of criminal behaviour, and should they even be considered guilty the “do gooders” jump up and down demanding rights for these poor people.
Get real, why sentence them to protracted jail sentences if they are found guilty beyond resonable doubt the only sentence possible capital punishment, it eliminates repeat offenders and prison overcrowding.
April 2, 2008 at 3:36 pm
These judges do not know the meaning of crime (and, believe me, I have intimate acquaintance with one). A bit of trouble and the police are soon around to sort things out. The more corrupt get their problems banged up on a whim. They really do not know what it is to experience crime and the way it is dealt with by the CJS for the vast majority of us ordinary, law-abiding, decent folk.
Cutting sentences is not the way to go. When are all these do-gooders going to realise that there is a hard-core of evil - yes, evil, even though I’m not a religious person - in some people that cannot be eradicated or dealt with by excusing and exonerating and softly, softly? Some people are just plain thoroughly bad to the core.
And this defence of drunkenness…? I’m astounded. It was drummed into us when I did my LawSoc CPE that drunkeness was NEVER a defence, that the offender had a choice and the responsibility for getting drunk in the first place and therefore created the conditions whereby s/he offended and thus was liable. This is much more than a dangerous precedent - it flags the open floodgates for any and every drug of choice offender to plead not guilty and get away with murder; it flags a massive sea change in English law. And yet another one that favours the criminal at the expense of the victim. It’s yet another type of case that the lazy, incompetent CPS will refuse to take on because they ‘can’t be ’sure of getting a conviction’.
April 5, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I think you’re being a little harsh on these two young whipper snappers. I mean, they were thoughtful enough to DRIVE these women to the cashpoints when they could easily have made them walk or take the bus. It’s good to see such courtesy and good manners in our young people.
Also, it was nice to see that they waited until AFTER these ladies had done their shopping. Could you imagine how upset the ladies would have been if they had been beaten up, kidnapped, robbed, terrified and then had to go home with nothing to make their menfolk for tea?
Come on, who can honestly say that as young boys they did not scrump for apples, ring doorbells and run away or rob, kidnap and mentally cripple for life defenceless, lone women?
Yours,
K Noyes,
Parkhurst,
Isle of Wight.
April 21, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Typical Daily Mail readers responses.Incararating people almost indefinitely simply isn’t the answer. It doesn’t work in the USA and it won’t work here. What we need to do is look beyond what these guys did there must be a deeper cause, Especially if they were born during the Thatcher years. The government has today sured up the banks with £50 billion pounds. If that sort of money was spent on benefits or improving low wages.These kids wouldn’t be rotting unecessarily in prison. When I do a court file I always put on the points to assist that the court should always listen very carefully and act on the probation services report.Flinging everyone in jail isn’t the answer the sentences should have been cut further, but well done to the judges to have the balls to treat these lads fairly despite all the baying for blood!