|
Post by whiskytangofoxtrot on Jun 21, 2018 6:50:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elkins17 on Jun 21, 2018 7:00:39 GMT
32 months to be run consecutively. Not long enough, but Atleast it’s added to the end of the sentence hes currently serving rather than being served concurrently. 👍
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 21, 2018 7:49:16 GMT
44 in all but definitely agree, not long enough. 32 consecutively and 12 concurrently?? So he is serving time and whilst serving that time he is also serving time for the second offence alongside the time he is serving for the first offence.
|
|
|
Post by elkins17 on Jun 21, 2018 8:11:15 GMT
44 in all but definitely agree, not long enough. 32 consecutively and 12 concurrently?? So he is serving time and whilst serving that time he is also serving time for the second offence alongside the time he is serving for the first offence. The 32 months will be consecutively. Which means it will run AFTER he has served his time for the first offence. The 12 months he got sentenced for, for the assault is concurrent which will run along side the extra 32 months. I don’t agree with concurrent sentencing. When studying law I struggled getting my head around it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 21, 2018 10:41:00 GMT
All in all he isn't doing the 12 months for ABH as he is already serving the other sentence.... some justice that...
|
|
|
Post by elkins17 on Jun 21, 2018 10:44:47 GMT
All in all he isn't doing the 12 months for ABH as he is already serving the other sentence.... some justice that... No. It would be like it was never given to him. Which isn’t fair. It’s a short time for what he done as it is without it going technically unserved.
|
|