I guess 14 years is better than nothing.
A homeowner who dragged a frail grandmother onto the street after she mistook his coastal house for a seafront B&B has been sentenced to 14 years in prison at Caernarfon Crown Court today.
Judge Mr Justice Bourne sentenced David Redfern, 46, to a minimum term in prison of 14 years, and the time spent on remand will be deducted to the time he will serve – making a net minimum term of 13 years and 127 days.
However, the judge cautioned Redfern that the ‘minimum term is not a fixed term,’ adding that if and when he is released, he will be ‘subject to license for life.’
David dragged Margaret Barnes, 71, downstairs by her feet after he found her asleep in a bed at his seafront home in Barmouth, North Wales, on July 11 last year.
Okay, she was under the influence. She was trespassing. But none of that justified the resultant response.
The 21-stone homeowner was left furious when he discovered Mrs Barnes had mistook his home for a B&B and undressed, unpacked and climbed into bed.
I see that the Mail still hasn’t found any decent editors. It’s mistaken not mistook.
After finding her in one of the bedrooms, he called the 71-year-old a ‘thieving c**t’ and ‘scumbag’ before he ‘stamped’ on her and threw her onto the street, Caernarfon Crown Court was told.
Tragically, Mrs Barnes, who had actually been intending to stay at the Wavecrest B&B just a few doors down from the property, died in the street from catastrophic injuries, including three broken ribs, that resembled a ‘high-speed car crash’.
And that is what justifies the prosecution and sentence. The reaction is way out of proportion to the original offence of trespass. The man is a thug and got what he deserved, although I’d have given him rather more than 14 years.
Me too. Comrade Stalin treatment – out the back of the Lubiyanka and a quick bullet !
But if he was sentenced to 14 years, won’t he actually be released from prison in 7 years (half of his sentence)?
Indeed.
No he won’t.For lesser offences they nearly always get 50% off but not for something this serious.
He will also be on licence for life so if he gets released early and commits another crime he will be at risk of serving the rest of tis sentence plus his new sentence.
That’s the general rule but our justice system is nowhere near strict enough.
Question is why was his property unlocked so she had access to it?
If he had locked his door she would have had to knock the door and might have realised her mistake.
That question doesn’t appear to have been addressed.
No indeed, a commenter to my blog raised that very question.
And I feel the jury didn’t give enough weight to the shock of finding a stranger in your house. Did he go too far? They evidently thought so. I’m not so sure.
I’ve left a comment at yours on this. A couple of points. That she was inebriated isn’t really relevant. So was he and that isn’t relevant either. As for how she got in, again, not really relevant to the case, but she was an elderly woman not in full health, with luggage. I would think it highly unlikely that she clambered in through a window.
Sure, he was shocked. I would be, but the jury gave it all the weight it needed. Had it been me, wouldn’t have killed her and I’m pretty sure that his response doesn’t pass the man on the Clapham omnibus test. That’s the point. Killing someone who has wandered uninvited into your house is very much unjustified. If I was on that jury, on that evidence – broken ribs, ruptured liver, sustained beating – yup, I would have convicted. The man is a brutal thug. He killed someone for a minor mistake and he deserves a life sentence. The only shame is that he won’t rot inside.
Julia is a hang em high judge and I’m with her most times, but not all, and this is one of those where I’m not.
It was a massive overreaction to what was a minor issue and could have been sorted without any violence at all. I’d have convicted on the evidence I’ve seen.
We can’t all agree on everything! I probably wouldn’t react like this either, but then again, maybe I would. There’s no CCTV, he argued that she got argumentative and violent (and I’ve not seen anything that proves that false, and surely his girlfriend would have testified to it?) which everyone seems to think ‘Aww, sweet little old lady…’but then, do sweet little old ladies get hammered regularly?
As for the ruptured liver, I’m surprised a coroner didn’t record the likelihood of liver disease with a chronic drinker. It might not have taken that much force…
There shouldn’t have been any force. That’s the point. The disparity between victim and perpetrator here means that he could have led her out without beating her up. Dragging her by her feet and repeatedly striking her to the point where he broke her ribs? Sorry, that is hugely over the top.
And the only person who could offer a rebuttal is dead, so they would say that, wouldn’t they?
Bottom line here is the severe injuries caused to the victim. The rest is moot.
Oddly, you are doing here what you rightly criticise others for doing – making excuses for inexcusable behaviour.
Because sometimes, there can be excuses…isn’t that what ‘mitigation’ is, when all’s said and done?
And if modern mitigation can be (and often is) used for the most vile people, guilty of many offences, I wonder why it’s not on offer to someone in this circumstance…
Sure, mitigation can be appropriately applied and this man is just as vile as some of those you talk about – if not more so. We don’t have all of the court records to hand, but it is highly likely that her state of inebriation would have been offered by the defence in mitigation. I would have expected them to at least give it a punt.
However we come back to the man on the Clapham omnibus and this one fails that test by a country mile.
A reasonable man would have behaved reasonably. I would have contacted the guest house and told them they had mislaid one of their guests, for example. No reasonable person would have given her a savage beating. Indeed, I struggle to comprehend in what universe this could ever be thought to be a proportionate response, or how it could possibly be mitigated. If the inebriation had been presented to me while on a jury, I’d have rejected it as entirely inadequate.
Everything else – the fact that both parties had been drinking or how she got in – become irrelevant to the core matter. He subjected this woman to a sustained, violent beating causing catastrophic injuries leading to her death. That’s where the evidence leads. Those injuries speak for themselves. On that alone, I would have reached a guilty verdict.
Well said.