A Flintshire woman has escaped an immediate custodial sentence by the narrowest of margins after spitting in the faces of two police officers.
Carol Bryan, 41, of Allt y Plas, Pentre Halkyn, admitted two charges of assault on an emergency worker when she appeared in custody at Mold Magistrates' Court on Saturday, 9th May 2020.
Magistrates heard that police were called to a disturbance involving a man and woman at the Cheeky Chicken & Pizza shop in Holywell at around 8 pm on Thursday, 7th May 2020.
Officers arrived and detained the male whilst speaking to nearby witnesses. The woman became aggressive with both police officers and spat in their faces.
The 38-year-old male who was arrested has been charged with offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. He was bailed to attend court on 18th August 2020.
Bryan was sentenced to 26 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with an electronically monitored curfew requirement for 26 weeks.
She was also ordered to pay £150 compensation, £128 victim surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.
General Secretary of North Wales Police Federation, Mark Jones, branded the sentencing of this case as 'pathetic' and claims the officers involved were 'let down by the judiciary'.
He said: "I am absolutely appalled at this pathetic sentence. Two police officers, carrying out their public duty have been disgustingly spat on, in their faces, by this vile person.
"My two colleagues have received no justice whatsoever and have been completely let down by the judiciary.
"Given the national crisis we are in with COVID-19; the dangerous and killer virus that it is, for the Courts to give a light slap on the wrist for this disgusting act is shameful.
"We seemed to be making some progress recently with tougher sentences being issued to those who weaponised COVID-19 but with taking one step forward we have now taken two steps back."
This was a sickening assault on two police officers doing their duty. Such disgusting behaviour is unacceptable in every sense and I can understand concern that the sentence imposed was insufficient.
In terms of sentencing options available to the court, it was about as firm a sentence that could be imposed short of immediate custody.
An electronically monitored curfew can only be imposed as a direct alternative to custody.
A suspended sentence order can only be imposed if the offence or combination of offences is so serious that immediate custody is justified, but the impact of immediate custody would be disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
Remember that the punishment of the offender, which is understandably very important to the police victims in this case, is not the only factor considered by the court when sentencing.
The Sentencing Council's definitive guideline "Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences" contains information about the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence.
Generally speaking, the following factors might indicate that it is appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence:
- The offender has a realistic prospect of rehabilitation;
- The offender has strong personal mitigation;
- Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others.
Those factors must have been present in this case - and would have been elaborated by the Presiding Justice when sentencing - but, as is often the case, they have gone unreported by the media.
It is a shame that the media focuses solely on sentencing outcomes, rather than the various steps of the sentencing process. Similarly, it is a shame they don't always report sentencing pronouncements with the detail and clarity they deserve.
No comments:
Post a Comment