Weak sentencing…

[Mistercee]

I see on page 3 of the Courier a report about a 77 years old fisherman being fined for landing undersize lobster. Out of a catch of 189 lobsters 17 were found to be under the limit. 13 of the 17 were between 1 and 2 mm too small and only 4 were 2 mm or more too small. 

£10,000 fine plus costs of £125. 

Is this proportionate?

Shouldn't the "fisheries officers" simply have told him to return the undersized ones to the sea - which is what happened anyway - and given him a warning. 

It seems like a lot of time and effort has been spent to prosecute someone completely unnecessarily  

 

[Numbnuts]

2 hours ago, Mistercee said:

I see on page 3 of the Courier a report about a 77 years old fisherman being fined for landing undersize lobster. Out of a catch of 189 lobsters 17 were found to be under the limit. 13 of the 17 were between 1 and 2 mm too small and only 4 were 2 mm or more too small. 

£10,000 fine plus costs of £125. 

Is this proportionate?

Shouldn't the "fisheries officers" simply have told him to return the undersized ones to the sea - which is what happened anyway - and given him a warning. 

It seems like a lot of time and effort has been spent to prosecute someone completely unnecessarily  

 

Thats pretty bad tbh as everyone knows the size limit and its a quick easy check with a gauge to identify correct size for keeping. I've fished lobsters as a hobby fisherman and most you can visually see there legal or not so its not a hardship to spend 10 secs max to measure . Potentially as the checks are not very good or regular , fishery protection issues , guess when they do catch someone ...... For me though a bigger issue is for hobby fisherman as you can have a max of 5 pots but only keep 2 lobsters a day. That is so open for abuse and it is. I've fished 5 pots and the most caught is 7 . Yes I did put back the excess but most dont. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Numbnuts

[thommo2010]

On 7/18/2022 at 10:53 PM, Passing Time said:

Amazingly though, any person charged with cannabis related charges can almost guarantee a jail sentence…

No they can't, unless it's a huge amount and supplying nobody goes to jail for possession of cannabis. 

[BriT]

This absolute sack of cr@p was lucky. How can glassing someone in the face and then getting your mates to intimidate the victim not get you inside?

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/courts/footballer-who-glassed-victim-walks-free-from-court-557256

[Omobono]

Its all about cost cutting , and keeping the price of someone at the jurby Hilton down , there was talk of weekend prison for some offenders , then you wouldn't have had to pay benefit to the family while the partner  was  locked up because they were still working 

there is also tons of community service  work  to be done ,even cleaning traffic signs , removing weeds  painting railings , the whole sentencing  policy needs an urgent review ,  and the punishment needs to fit the crime !

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, BriT said:

This absolute sack of cr@p was lucky. How can glassing someone in the face and then getting your mates to intimidate the victim not get you inside?

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/courts/footballer-who-glassed-victim-walks-free-from-court-557256

Did you read the report?  An expert witness found that his story that he shoved rather than hit was consistent with the injury.  Also he said he had forgotten he had the glass in his hand.  Character references, genuine remorse and an open letter to compensate the victim regardless of the verdict all mitigated it would seem.  The seriousness is recognised in the  sentence, but this was suspended for the reasons given.

Was it intimidation, or friends ill-advisedly trying to help?

From the report I would not consider it weak sentencing. 

[AOR]

Thugs. His mates should have gone down too.

First line of the IoMToday link. Deemster: ‘The sentence I am about to impose has no reflection on your footballing prowess.’

wtf has that got to do with it anyway? 

Edited July 31, 2022 by AOR

[AOR]

3 minutes ago, Omobono said:

Its all about cost cutting , and keeping the price of someone at the jurby Hilton down

They could have had a pretty good football team though.

[BriT]

27 minutes ago, Gladys said:

From the report I would not consider it weak sentencing. 

Hopefully nobody ever glasses you or anyone you care about in the face then if you think that’s fair. Forgot you had a glass in your hand when you were asleep in bed immediately before the incident? Also a character reference from your girlfriend’s dad; he’s hardly going to say you’re a psychopath is he if of you’re going out with his daughter. Equally presumably he’d have to make it clear the offer to compensate was regardless of outcome otherwise it would come across as a clear bribe to drop charges.

Edited July 31, 2022 by BriT

[AOR]

What if the reference was to have been a rather good player in the Ronague United Cowell Cup team. Would it have been mentioned in court?

A glass in the face is a glass in the face.

Edited July 31, 2022 by AOR
profanity removed

[Wavey Davey]

43 minutes ago, AOR said:

Thugs. His mates should have gone down too.

First line of the IoMToday link. Deemster: ‘The sentence I am about to impose has no reflection on your footballing prowess.’

It then continues 

“He also noted that the psychiatric report on his client states he has suffered with anxiety since 2016, which has been made worse by the proceedings brought against him”

How awful for the victim to put him under so much psychological stress by letting himself be glassed in the face by him which precipitated the court proceedings he found so stressful 😂

There does seem to be an awful lot of people trying to justify what many will see as a very light sentence. 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, AOR said:

Thugs. His mates should have gone down too.

First line of the IoMToday link. Deemster: ‘The sentence I am about to impose has no reflection on your footballing prowess.’

wtf has that got to do with it anyway? 

 

48 minutes ago, AOR said:

What if the reference was to have been a rather good player in the Ronague United Cowell Cup team. Would it have been mentioned in court?

A glass in the face is a glass in the face.

Have you thought you may be interpreting  it incorrectly, and the the remark was addressed as much to the general public as the the defendant. Sort of “I’m not sentencing you/this man to a lesser sentence because you’re/he’s an accomplished football player “?

[Dirty Buggane]

AOR has a point, why was football mentioned at all in his summing up. Is it relevant to the offence, Have read it over and over and can not see the connection.

[AOR]

Just now, John Wright said:

 

Have you thought you may be reading it incorrectly, and the the remark was addressed to the general public. Sort of “I’m not sentencing this man to a lesser sentence because he’s an accomplished football player “?

A bit patronising but I appreciate your words all the same.

No, I do not think I am reading the remarks incorrectly.

Why did he sentence this man to a lesser sentence.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, BriT said:

Hopefully nobody ever glasses you or anyone you care about in the face then if you think that’s fair. Forgot you had a glass in your hand when you were asleep in bed immediately before the incident? Also a character reference from your girlfriend’s dad; he’s hardly going to say you’re a psychopath is he if of you’re going out with his daughter. Equally presumably he’d have to make it clear the offer to compensate was regardless of outcome otherwise it would come across as a clear bribe to drop charges.

I didn't say that being glassed in the face was fair, I said a reasonable prison sentence suspended was not weak sentencing given the mitigating factors.  He had references from others too (and if his girlfriend's dad did think he was a psychopath, he wouldn't have given a favourable reference, he would want him locked up away from his daughter).