This is a little later than planned, but recently I’ve been responding to a number of queries about legal issues on Twitter through threads, and it struck me that it might be of some use (possibly) to put them up here, for anyone interested who doesn’t catch them live.
Here, from a fortnight ago, I look at why a Britain First supporter who drove his van at the owner of an Indian restaurant, having earlier expressed a desire to “kill a Muslim”, received 33 weeks’ imprisonment upon his conviction.
The facts provided by the Metropolitan Police are here. In summary, Zakrocki, having drunk 2 bottles of wine, assaulted his wife and left home. He told police he was going to “kill a Muslim”. He then drove around Harrow shouting “white power”. pic.twitter.com/wGF7HhYVm8
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
Upon arrest, he was in possession of a kitchen knife and a baton torch. He told police when interviewed that he had no recollection of what had happened. The BBC reports that racist literature was found at his house.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
Establishing the reasons for this is not entirely straightforward, but it appears from the BBC that the speed of the driving was taken into account: https://t.co/U9rU0Y6AzV
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
Proving attempted murder requires proving an intent to kill. One can see how if Z was driving at a low speed, the prosecution might struggle. Causing grievous (really serious) bodily harm is a little different. You don’t have to drive at a very high speed to cause serious injury.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
So we’re in the dark as to whether this was a reasonable decision by the prosecution. I would note that, given the seriousness of the original charge, prosecuting counsel will have been one of the most experienced. And the judge is very highly regarded. But we just don’t know.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
It has been reported that, notwithstanding the abundant evidence of religious and racial motivation leading up to the offence, Z was *not* sentenced for religious or racial aggravation (as a “hate crime”, as the police call it). The BBC say: https://t.co/3SbjIJWQ05
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
In such offences, the judge should impose an “uplift” to the sentence to reflect the religious/racial aggravating, and state that when passing sentence. It is unclear whether HHJ Leonard QC did, but the police seem to think he took this into account: pic.twitter.com/gjnPbTR5GK
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
It would be interesting to know the uplift for the aggravation, as on its face the use of a car as a weapon usually puts an offence towards the top of the sentencing range. I discuss uplifts in more detail re Raheem Sterling’s racist attacker here: https://t.co/CSd0dlq1cK
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
But, regardless of whether the law was correctly followed, I have sympathy with people who feel that 33 weeks’ custody (of which half is served) does not reflect the seriousness of this offence, on the reported facts.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
What’s that? Is this kind of confusion over sentencing decisions something that is covered in my book due out in 22 March? Why yes, yes it is. Thank you for asking. It’s available for pre-order here: https://t.co/ysL7Ct8uTT
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
*CORRECTION: The 1-week consecutive sentence was for the assault on the defendant’s wife, not the drink driving: pic.twitter.com/9KbI45NlDq
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) January 13, 2018
Reblogged this on | truthaholics.