I see that Munir Hussain has been freed on appeal.
A businessman who was jailed for permanently injuring an intruder who attacked him and his family has been freed by the Court of Appeal.
His conviction, however, has not been overturned.
His jail sentence is now 12 months suspended for two years.
There is also a supervision requirement for the two years.
Given that Mr Hussain did break the law, but was severely provoked, I’d say that this was a reasonable result. A conviction for breaking the law, but a non custodial sentence that reflects the severe distress and provocation that he experienced.
What effing law? An iniquitous one which does not stand up in the context of Magna Carta’s subsequent revisions.
Agreed. It won’t please everyone, but I think it’s in the great traditions of British justice.
Hmm, I still blame the bloody jury.
And yet his attacker was “unfit” to be tried. Strangely, he WAS fit enough to continue his life of crime and states that he is “untouchable”. Surely if he is capable both of this statement and continuing to commit crimes he must also be capable of being prosecuted and adequately punished for them?
He should have used two cricket bats and finished the job.
We rather did this one to death when discussing the case originally and I really don’t want to go over all that ground again. However, briefly, self defence ceases to be self defence when the attacker is no longer a threat. There’s nothing new or radical about that concept. The injustice here was the custodial sentence. I disagree with Trooper Thompson regarding the jury – they made a judgement based upon the evidence. Given that evidence, I’d have reached the same conclusion. The unfairness was in the sentencing, not the judgement. Today’s appeal decision reverses that, which is why I feel that it is a good decision and a fair compromise.
Michael, yes, but that is a different case and suggests that he CPS got it wrong (again).
Hmmm, not convinced about this one. The revenge attack that he launched was truly brutal, and although the circumstances were indeed distressing I’m not entirely convinced that he should be kept out of prison for what he did.
Tough one.
@LFAT,
What’s tough about it?
You’re threatened and bound in your own home with your wife and children, and you’re not going to become violent? Are you kidding?
I don’t know what I would have done in the place of this guy, but I suspect that if some low life threaten my children, I will do everything I can to make him pay a heavy price.
You would do well to remember that it is NOT the homewowner who intentionally went out to get this guy, rather the reverse. If you CHOOSE to enter people’s homes and threaten them, you forego any and every protection this supposedly civilised society is giving you.
A revenge would have been calculated and premeditated, which is an entirely different case.
As it is, this man has probably prevented other people to suffer his fate, if he has actually damaged that low life. He should be commended.
LFAT, The law required a prosecution and conviction. Justice recognises the provocation, distress and adrenaline rush as mitigating circumstances and required a non-custodial sentence. So not tough in my opinion.
Sooooo…the law and justice are at odds here? You don’t say!
“Justice recognises the provocation, distress and adrenaline rush as mitigating circumstances”
The question is: should justice recognise these as mitigating circumstances or as a valid defense? Our sense of moral responsibility derives from the idea that our actions are exercised through free will based on rational decisions.
In the minutes after such an attack, our emotional self rather than our rational self is in control through rage and adrenalin. We are not carefully weighing up the most appropriate response, we are, quite naturally in accordance with our humanity, driven by outrage at the abuse to us and those we love and if a suitable opportunity avails it self we shall exact revenge. Since this arises from our emotions and not rational thought, we should not be held morally, and therefore legally, responsible. We did not put ourselves in that emotional state, the perpetrator of the original crime did, and hence they need to bear the responsibility.
People who rationally decide to set out on criminal ventures need to include in that decision an understanding that if they choose to proceed and there are negative consequences for them as a result of people acting emotionally (through anger, fear, etc.) in response to the criminal’s violation of their rights, then the law considers that the criminal, as the person solely responsible for the emotional state, is solely responsible for the consequences. There would not be arguments about what is a reasonable response as one cannot be morally responsible for actions carried out due to emotions over which we have no control. The state would have an onus to prove that a victim’s actions were carried out as a result of free will and not emotions.