I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences were >handed out, but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less serious"
offences, though the Beeb tried to minimise it by somehow forgetting to >mention the no doubt traumatised victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone exercised
by by it?
The BBC news site and teletext today both feature a story of a man who has been in
prison for nearly twenty years for a "laptop robbery", as the headline has it.
But of course, he didn't rob a laptop. That's not possible. He robbed the person who
was in possession of that laptop. The offence is defined within S.8 of the 1968 Theft
Act:
QUOTE:
(1) A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time
of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put
any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
(2) A person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob,
shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for *life*. ENDQUOTE
(and my emphasis)
The story:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5154j4z0o>
QUOTE:
A prisoner who has served almost five times his original sentence for a laptop robbery
still has no prospect of being released.
Abdullahi Suleman, 41, from Cardiff, is still in prison after being handed an Imprisonment for Public Protection, external (IPP) sentence in 2005.
These were handed out between 2005 and 2012 to try and keep the most dangerous
criminals behind bars, but scrapped after criticism, such as the fact less serious
offenders were getting caught up in the provision.
ENDQUOTE
I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences were handed out,
but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less serious" offences, though the Beeb tried
to minimise it by somehow forgetting to mention the no doubt traumatised victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone exercised by by it?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The BBC news site and teletext today both feature a story of a man who has been in
prison for nearly twenty years for a "laptop robbery", as the headline has it.
But of course, he didn't rob a laptop. That's not possible. He robbed the person who
was in possession of that laptop. The offence is defined within S.8 of the 1968 Theft
Act:
QUOTE:
(1) A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time
of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put
any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
(2) A person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob,
shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for *life*.
ENDQUOTE
(and my emphasis)
The story:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5154j4z0o>
QUOTE:
A prisoner who has served almost five times his original sentence for a laptop robbery
still has no prospect of being released.
Abdullahi Suleman, 41, from Cardiff, is still in prison after being handed an
Imprisonment for Public Protection, external (IPP) sentence in 2005.
These were handed out between 2005 and 2012 to try and keep the most dangerous
criminals behind bars, but scrapped after criticism, such as the fact less serious
offenders were getting caught up in the provision.
ENDQUOTE
I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences were handed out,
but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less serious" offences, though the Beeb tried
to minimise it by somehow forgetting to mention the no doubt traumatised victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone exercised by by it?
Exercised by what ?
The fact that as of June 2023, there are still 2909 prisoners serving IPP sentences
of whom more than half had been held for at least 10 years after the expiration
of their tariff ?
The fact the end of March 2023 there were approximately 1,355
offenders serving IPP sentences who had never been released from prison ?
That many other IPP inmates had been released, but then later recalled to prison?
That hundreds of IPP prisoners had served five times the minimum ?
Or the fact that the BBC apparently forgot to mention something in a story about
a man stealing a laptop 20 years ago ?
Or the fact that you'd apparently never heard of IPP sentences before ?
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protection
JNugent wrote:
I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences
were handed out, but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less
serious" offences, though the Beeb tried to minimise it by somehow
forgetting to mention the no doubt traumatised victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone
exercised by by it?
Not too much because I read the rest and in fact he has been in and out
of custody because he refuses to take his medication, otherwise he would
have been out for good years ago.
On 03/08/2024 05:53 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences were handed
out, but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less serious" offences, though the Beeb
tried to minimise it by somehow forgetting to mention the no doubt traumatised
victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone exercised by by it?
Not too much because I read the rest and in fact he has been in and out of custody
because he refuses to take his medication, otherwise he would have been out for good
years ago.
"could" rather than "would", I think.
It would be a brave commentator who tried to claim that the public have not been safer
as a result.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences were handed
out, but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less serious" offences, though the Beeb
tried to minimise it by somehow forgetting to mention the no doubt traumatised
victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone exercised by by it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5154j4z0o
Not too much because I read the rest and in fact he has been in and out of custody
because he refuses to take his medication, otherwise he would have been out for good
years ago.
"could" rather than "would", I think.
It would be a brave commentator who tried to claim that the public have not been safer
as a result.
So how many further crimes exactly did Sulleman commit, during his 5
periods of temporary release, one of two and a half years ?
These crimes that the public clearly needs protecting from ?
A rough approximation will do
No need for two decimal places or anything..
And here's another rough approximation
£ 51,724
That's the annual cost of locking up people like Suleman and
keeping the public safe from their non existent crimes
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1202172/cost-per-prisoner-england-and-wales/
On 04/08/2024 10:12 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences were handed
out, but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less serious" offences, though the
Beeb
tried to minimise it by somehow forgetting to mention the no doubt traumatised
victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone exercised by by
it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5154j4z0o
Not too much because I read the rest and in fact he has been in and out of custody
because he refuses to take his medication, otherwise he would have been out for good
years ago.
"could" rather than "would", I think.
It would be a brave commentator who tried to claim that the public have not been
safer
as a result.
So how many further crimes exactly did Sulleman commit, during his 5
periods of temporary release, one of two and a half years ?
These crimes that the public clearly needs protecting from ?
A rough approximation will do
No need for two decimal places or anything..
And here's another rough approximation
£ 51,724
That's the annual cost of locking up people like Suleman and
keeping the public safe from their non existent crimes
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1202172/cost-per-prisoner-england-and-wales/
Robbery (of necessity with, or with the threat of, violence) is not a non-existent
crime.
The reasons for the offender's recall to prison have been mentioned by other posters
(and were all in the linked BBC article in the first place).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
I am not aware of the range of offences for which those IPP sentences were handed
out, but robbery is obviously NOT one of the "less serious" offences, though the
Beeb tried to minimise it by somehow forgetting to mention the no doubt traumatised
victim.
There are other facets of the case that I haven't C'n'Pd. Anyone exercised by by
it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5154j4z0o
Not too much because I read the rest and in fact he has been in and out of custody
because he refuses to take his medication, otherwise he would have been out for good
years ago.
"could" rather than "would", I think.
It would be a brave commentator who tried to claim that the public have not been
safer as a result.
So how many further crimes exactly did Sulleman commit, during his 5
periods of temporary release, one of two and a half years ?
These crimes that the public clearly needs protecting from ?
A rough approximation will do
No need for two decimal places or anything..
And here's another rough approximation
£ 51,724
That's the annual cost of locking up people like Suleman and
keeping the public safe from their non existent crimes
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1202172/cost-per-prisoner-england-and-wales/
Robbery (of necessity with, or with the threat of, violence) is not a non-existent
crime.
What has that got to do with answering my question
How many further crimes exactly did Suleman commit, during his 5
periods of temporary release ? One of two and a half years ?
The reasons for the offender's recall to prison have been mentioned by other posters
(and were all in the linked BBC article in the first place).
Yes and they have nothing whatsoever to do with his original crime.
He was sentenced in 2005
He suffered a mental health breakdown *6 years later* in 2011
and was admitted to hospital.
quote:
After being discharged, he was told that missing any hospital appointments or failing to take his medication would result in being recalled to prison. [...]
Two-and-a-half years later he was recalled for four months, and since then
he has been recalled another three times
unquote
To repeat his original crime had nothing to do with his mental condition.
And so you might think that if someone has developed mental health
issues in the meantime holding the threat of a recall to prison over
their head if they missed a single hospital appointment is hardly going
to improve matters. Is it ?
Basically if Suleman represented that much of a threat either to himself
of to others then he could have been sectioned at any time. Except he clearly wasn't and isn't otherwise he would have been. Instead he's locked up with
an indefinite sentence hanging over his head, until the day he dies. Assuming they even notice and don't try and lock him up for missing another appointment.
Honestly: take it up with the authorities. Offhand, it looks as though they know a bit more about the case than we do (or can).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lhblspFnce8U1@mid.individual.net...
Honestly: take it up with the authorities. Offhand, it looks as though they >> know a bit more about the case than we do (or can).
That's an interesting approach.
The only real surprise being, that you haven't mentioned it before.
Given as you started the thread.
And is it possible that it might equally apply, to other questions
as well ?
On 06/08/2024 10:44 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lhblspFnce8U1@mid.individual.net...
Honestly: take it up with the authorities. Offhand, it looks as though they >>> know a bit more about the case than we do (or can).
That's an interesting approach.
The only real surprise being, that you haven't mentioned it before.
Given as you started the thread.
...on general principles.
The facts of the case are less easy to argue, since they are merely hinted at in the
cited article.
And is it possible that it might equally apply, to other questions
as well ?
Always possible. That's the difference between principled and case-specific discussion.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lhef6dF5p8dU2@mid.individual.net...
On 06/08/2024 10:44 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lhblspFnce8U1@mid.individual.net...
Honestly: take it up with the authorities. Offhand, it looks as though they
know a bit more about the case than we do (or can).
That's an interesting approach.
The only real surprise being, that you haven't mentioned it before.
Given as you started the thread.
...on general principles.
The facts of the case are less easy to argue, since they are merely hinted at in the
cited article.
And is it possible that it might equally apply, to other questions
as well ?
Always possible. That's the difference between principled and case-specific discussion.
So what general principles were you most concerned with, in this
particular instance ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 422 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 196:49:26 |
| Calls: | 8,951 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,352 |
| Messages: | 5,992,477 |