At least attempted armed robbery still constitutes a breach of bail conditions
nick cowen, 21 February 2008
A worrying case has emerged this morning. A shopkeeper managed to fend off an attempted robbery by stabbing the assailant with his own knife. From the details available, this response was proportionate since the shopkeeper suffered wounds in the struggle as well (it was clear that the robber was prepared to carry out his threat to attack). Yet the shopkeeper now may face charges of murder, manslaughter or assault, pending a review by the CPS. While it is proper for the police to investigate deaths along these lines, unless there is more to this case than meets the eye, this is a highly disproportionate response to a citizen protecting his life and property.
But lets take a quick look at the story behind the story. The assailant was out on bail charged with two counts of armed robbery. He breached his conditions by not returning to court to face the charges, and instead attempted to commit another. His criminal history indicates that he was a repeat offender who has not just used knives but guns to commit crimes. In a functioning criminal justice system, there would actually be several good reasons for him not being out on the street at all. He should have been given much longer prison sentences for the crimes that he had been convicted of and he should have been remanded in custody for the crimes that he had been charged with. The system put the whole public at risk, and the shopkeeper almost paid a high price. Why is this? Well, as we have discussed before, it is because we have a system that is focussed on an offender management model of criminal justice rather than one of crime reduction. In other words, the system is judged to be functioning so long as offenders are being processed by the system, not whether they have actually stopped committing crimes or posing a threat to the public.
It is a great shame this repeat offender, Liam Kilroe, was not locked up for rather longer. If he had, he would still be alive and still have a chance of changing his criminal lifestyle, which should always be considered the preferred outcome. But either way, at least now he won’t be having these sort of conversations with impressionable youngsters.
Most of today’s “soi-disant” liberals are in fact marxists. They reject notions of individual responsibility and view crime as the inescapable upshot of “deprivation” which normal people call envy – now heavily touted and endorsed by the nauseating Oliver James. They are also in positions of authority throughout the administration of this country. Hence the absurd leniency shown towards habitual or violent offenders and the bureaucratic brutality meted out to the victims. These are either – in the hard left jargon – “passive” and therefore culpable or “privileged” and so beyond the pale. What happens to them doesn’t count.
As for this “offender management” nonsense, it recalls one of the more lunatic doctrines in current teaching, by which “process” is valued over “outcome” – as though “process” without “outcome” were an end in itself. Welcome to the Sisyphean world of socialism.
It is small wonder that three million people have fled this country. Soon, Brown and his repulsive client state will have to “invest” in some sort of Berlin Wall.
The law should be changed so that the time actually served for serious crimes of violence is multiplied by a factor of five.
For example, a current sentence of four years which means two spent inside, should be replaced by ten years without remission.
These offenders should be teated as public enemies rather than erring citizens.
That Mr Singh is going to court, following his experiences with Liam Kilroe, is absolutely correct.
Clearly, Mr Singh was the victim of a harrowing ordeal in which he nearly lost his life, at the hands of a dangerous, serial thug, and he has every right to prosecute. His prosecution case, one envisages, would state that the physical injuries he suffered, along with the emotional harm caused by the reaction he was forced into, was down to the criminal negligence of the CPS, for allowing Kilroe to be released previously. Agents of the CPS, responsible for this decision, are the appropriate defendants.
The case seems clear cut: Since the CPS assumes the authority to determine the necessary and appropriate steps required to protect people, it also holds all responsibility for ensuring they succeed, or taking all reasonable steps in this direction. The risks, thus results, of allowing Kilroe to be free within society appear extremely foreseeable, from Kilroe’s history and statistics of offenders such as him.
I would hope the verdict found Mr Singh has been abjectly failed by a contemptuous and knowingly irresponsible case of criminal negligence. No serious attempt was ever made to protect society here. I would hope it recommends sentences be served by those responsible, as well as recommendations that they never work in public service again.
Its diabolical.
You’re overreacting. It is not a disproportionate response at all – it is the correct procedure
Since the CPS (and no longer the police) now decides on prosecutions, then the police need to prepare a report for the CPS. Are you really saying that the police should not prepare a report on a death such as this? I’d be shocked if they didn’t.
This does not imply that either the police or the CPS do or will consider that any charges would be appropriate.
I would have thought that the legal system would have been pleased by the outcome of this incident, rather than talking about criminal proceedings. After all, the police, judges, etc are supposedly under pressure to reduce the number of people in prison, and Mr Kilroe will never be taking up space in one again.
One would have thought that the shopkeeper would be being congratulated instead of facing the possibility of legal action.
There’s just no satisfying some people.