Conviction with existing suspended sentence

MissesMe

Hi all,

Five years ago, my partner was involved in a fight and ended up with a three year suspended sentence which was suspended for three years. This was a section 3 assault.

Three years ago (when the suspended sentence was still in effect), my partner was involved in another fight. The other person ended up with some bruises but did not have any cuts. It is being charged as a section 2 assault. My partner will more than likely be found guilty.

My partner has not been in any sort of trouble since that incident three years ago and the suspended sentence ended two years ago. When he is found guilty of this second incident what is the most likely outcome? Will he more than likely be made to serve the full three years? We have a ten year old daughter and she is very much a daddy's girl. She will be devastated if her father goes to jail but it's looking more and more likely as the days go by. Needless to say this has caused a lot of stress and anxiety over the last three years so any advice would be much appreciated. I'm not necessarily looking for legal advice, but maybe some one has been through a similar situation?

Thanks.

Procrastastudy

Can't give legal advice but what measures is he taking in regards to his anger issues? He needs help to avoid these situations and if they arise deal with them more effectively.

endacl

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Can't give legal advice but what measures is he taking in regards to his anger issues? He needs help to avoid these situations and if they arise deal with them more effectively.

^^ Not legal advice, but excellent advice.

I witnessed two stupid fights developing and escalating over the weekend. Both avoidable. Neither avoided. Each ended in one person taking a pounding, and one walking away. Two idiots who didn't know each other and who would likely never see each other again in each case.

Your partner needs to examine his part in this, and more importantly how it is going to affect you and your daughter. His fights are not your problem, but dealing with the aftermath may be.

Best of luck.

MissesMe

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Can't give legal advice but what measures is he taking in regards to his anger issues? He needs help to avoid these situations and if they arise deal with them more effectively.

Thanks for the reply. Both of the incidents above happened after a night out when my partner was drunk. After the second fight he stopped drinking completely until about three months ago when he felt that he could handle himself better in certain situations. I can see a massive change in him and he seems to think that anger management sessions are not needed. Anger management wouldn't do any harm so I may speak to him again about it.

Procrastastudy

MissesMe wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Both of the incidents above happened after a night out when my partner was drunk. After the second fight he stopped drinking completely until about three months ago when he felt that he could handle himself better in certain situations. I can see a massive change in him and he seems to think that anger management sessions are not needed. Anger management wouldn't do any harm so I may speak to him again about it.

Classic situation that he's better off (as we all are in all honesty) off the booze. If he's getting involved in fights when he's drunk he needs to stop the drinking as well. Tell him to look at it this way - what's more important. Having a few drinks or being there for his daughter as she grows up?

I wish you the very best of luck OP it's going to be tough going but stick it out! I'm no expert - quite the opposite - but if it was me as the judge and I saw a guy trying his best with a supportive family I'd be much more inclined to go easy.

MissesMe

endacl wrote: »

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Can't give legal advice but what measures is he taking in regards to his anger issues? He needs help to avoid these situations and if they arise deal with them more effectively.

^^ Not legal advice, but excellent advice.

I witnessed two stupid fights developing and escalating over the weekend. Both avoidable. Neither avoided. Each ended in one person taking a pounding, and one walking away. Two idiots who didn't know each other and who would likely never see each other again in each case.

Your partner needs to examine his part in this, and more importantly how it is going to affect you and your daughter. His fights are not your problem, but dealing with the aftermath may be.

Best of luck.

Again, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, dealing with the aftermath is exactly what me and my daughter have to do at this stage. I suppose I'm really here asking these questions in order to prepare myself.

Procrastastudy

MissesMe wrote: »

Again, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, dealing with the aftermath is exactly what me and my daughter have to do at this stage. I suppose I'm really here asking these questions in order to prepare myself.

OP the mods here are great - I know myself I've pushed the boundaries more than once waffling on about things I have no idea about. The patience they exhibit is frankly astounding sometimes. The issue in this forum is that there are all sorts of issues if they let that go too far. Personally I'd ask for this to be moved to personal issues but its your call of course.

It goes without saying he should get proper legal advice. There's legal aid and FLAC.

MissesMe

Classic situation that he's better off (as we all are in all honesty) off the booze. If he's getting involved in fights when he's drunk he needs to stop the drinking as well. Tell him to look at it this way - what's more important. Having a few drinks or being there for his daughter as she grows up?

I wish you the very best of luck OP it's going to be tough going but stick it out! I'm no expert - quite the opposite - but if it was me as the judge and I saw a guy trying his best with a supportive family I'd be much more inclined to go easy.[/Quote]

Well here's to hoping that the judge will have a similar point of view. Many thanks

endacl

MissesMe wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Both of the incidents above happened after a night out when my partner was drunk. After the second fight he stopped drinking completely until about three months ago when he felt that he could handle himself better in certain situations. I can see a massive change in him and he seems to think that anger management sessions are not needed. Anger management wouldn't do any harm so I may speak to him again about it.

I hope when you speak to him you'll be insisting.

Holsten

I'm not 100%, but with his 3 year suspended sentence, a condition was probably to keep the peace, which it seems he did not, so he didn't follow the conditions thus the sentence can be activated?

He may be required to serve out his 3 year sentence, PLUS whatever he receives for the new section 2 assault.

Probably concurrent sentence though.

So worst case would be 3.5 years, best would be another suspended sentence and they don't activate the first, most likely would be the original sentence to be served.

ResearchWill

MissesMe wrote: »

Hi all,

Five years ago, my partner was involved in a fight and ended up with a three year suspended sentence which was suspended for three years. This was a section 3 assault.

Three years ago (when the suspended sentence was still in effect), my partner was involved in another fight. The other person ended up with some bruises but did not have any cuts. It is being charged as a section 2 assault. My partner will more than likely be found guilty.

My partner has not been in any sort of trouble since that incident three years ago and the suspended sentence ended two years ago. When he is found guilty of this second incident what is the most likely outcome? Will he more than likely be made to serve the full three years? We have a ten year old daughter and she is very much a daddy's girl. She will be devastated if her father goes to jail but it's looking more and more likely as the days go by. Needless to say this has caused a lot of stress and anxiety over the last three years so any advice would be much appreciated. I'm not necessarily looking for legal advice, but maybe some one has been through a similar situation?

Thanks.

You say the section 2 assault (the more recent case) was an event 3 years ago, but it has not gone to Court yet. Are you sure it's a section 2 he is being charged with and not section 3 or 4.

By the way for re-entry of a suspended sentence Section 99 (9) of the Criminal justice Act 2006 deals with that. Take a read of the subsection,

(9) Where a person to whom an order under subsection (1) applies is, during the period of suspension of the sentence concerned, convicted of an offence, the court before which proceedings for the offence were brought shall, after imposing sentence for that offence, remand the person in custody or on bail to the next sitting of the court that made the said order.

Pkiernan

Unfortunately for society, but fortunately for him, he will most likely receive just another suspended sentence.

winsumlusum

Pkiernan wrote: »

Unfortunately for society, but fortunately for him, he will most likely receive just another suspended sentence.

suspended sentence is a joke

winsumlusum

When I wrote

suspended sentence is a joke

I got reply through the email notification which seems to have been deleted. It said

Do you have anything more substantial to say? Have you thought this though any further than buying a copy of the Daily Mail?

I will reply as follows: My comment is a fair comment and stands alone and am not under any obligation to say anything more substantial.
The poster does not know if i buy the Daily Mail. Actually i don't. It amazes me when i see people who claim to be legal people make such sweeping incorrect generalisations whle engaging in a profession where being precise is so important. If and When he gets to court with that attitude he will be laughed out of it. Even if i do read the mail it does not change the fact that suspended sentence is a joke and no deterrant. If the man had served his three years he nay have learned what no amount of anger therapy will teach him.

Procrastastudy

winsumlusum wrote: »

When I wrote I got reply through the email notification which seems to have been deleted. It said
I will reply as follows: My comment is a fair comment and stands alone and am not under any obligation to say anything more substantial.
The poster does not know if i buy the Daily Mail. Actually i don't. It amazes me when i see people who claim to be legal people make such sweeping incorrect generalisations whle engaging in a profession where being precise is so important. If and When he gets to court with that attitude he will be laughed out of it. Even if i do read the mail it does not change the fact that suspended sentence is a joke and no deterrant. If the man had served his three years he nay have learned what no amount of anger therapy will teach him.

I deleted the post as it was unnecessarily argumentative so sorry. However be careful of accusing people of being inaccurate and making generalisations when you do so yourself, both in your intial post which I took issue with and now. Far from claiming I am a legal professional I have gone out of my way to say (and prove with some of my posts :P) I am not.

As for suspended sentences - they are far from a joke, they are an extremely useful tool. You attitude to prison seems to me a sweeping generalisation and seems to informed from some source such as the Daily Mail or other populist media. The fact is prison is a rubbish deterrent. It doesn't seem to stop crime, causes all sorts of issues for those that end up there (which leads to more crime) and costs you and I a bloody fortune! Rather than spending almost a quarter of a million euros on locking this guy up wouldn't it be better to spend a fraction of this money sorting out is anger and alcohol problems?

To be clear I'm not saying we don't need prisons we do - as a last resort. I'm also acutely aware that the courts can't order the range of punishments they should be able to.

winsumlusum

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I deleted the post as it was unnecessarily argumentative so sorry. However be careful of accusing people of being inaccurate and making generalisations when you do so yourself, both in your intial post which I took issue with and now. Far from claiming I am a legal professional I have gone out of my way to say (and prove with some of my posts :P) I am not.

you were inaccure and making generalisations when you said i read mail etc.That was pure imaginative unfounded speculation. I was not making a generalisation. i made a statement that suspended sentence is a joke which it is IMO. However your saying i read mail was pure imaginative unfounded speculation.

Procrastastudy

winsumlusum wrote: »

you were inaccure and making generalisations when you said i read mail etc.That was pure imaginative unfounded speculation. I was not making a generalisation. i made a statement that suspended sentence is a joke which it is IMO. However your saying i read mail was pure imaginative unfounded speculation.

See my edit.

winsumlusum

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I deleted the post as it was unnecessarily argumentative so sorry. However be careful of accusing people of being inaccurate and making generalisations when you do so yourself, both in your intial post which I took issue with and now. Far from claiming I am a legal professional I have gone out of my way to say (and prove with some of my posts :P) I am not.

As for suspended sentences - they are far from a joke, they are an extremely useful tool. You attitude to prison seems to me a sweeping generalisation and seems to informed from some source such as the Daily Mail or other populist media. The fact is prison is a rubbish deterrent. It doesn't seem to stop crime, causes all sorts of issues for those that end up there (which leads to more crime) and costs you and I a bloody fortune! Rather than spending almost a quarter of a million euros on locking this guy up wouldn't it be better to spend a fraction of this money sorting out is anger and alcohol problems?

To be clear I'm not saying we don't need prisons we do - as a last resort. I'm also acutely aware that the courts can't order the range of punishments they should be able to.

wasn't much good in current circumstance. As in many cases allowed further criminal act while on a suspended sentence

nd seems to informed from some source such as the Daily Mail

still nonsense you have no idea where my opinion comes from

NoQuarter

Don't feed the troll.

Indricotherium

NoQuarter wrote: »

Don't feed the troll.

This is nonsense, the merits of suspended sentencing are being discussed.

Not agreeing with one side or the other doesn't make it a trolling post.

NoQuarter

Indricotherium wrote: »

This is nonsense, the merits of suspended sentencing are being discussed.

Not agreeing with one side or the other doesn't make it a trolling post.

Are the merits of suspended sentences the topic of this thread? Is calling suspended sentences "a joke" and not elaborating or putting forward an argument the same as "being discussed"?

The troll is trolling, looking for a reaction, dragging the thread off topic to flash his views and then not explain.

So is it nonsence to say he is trying to provoke a reaction, aka trolling?

If he wants to discuss the merits or learn about the logic behind suspended sentences there are at least 2 threads that were recentely started on this. If they dont answer his question he can start his own thread. As it stands the OP's question hasnt been conclusively answered and now this thread has been derailed.

So no, it certainly is not nonsence.

Maximilian

Well this thread got derailed fast.

OP, you would be better served posting in the personal issues forum; your query is not really a legal one.