perversion of justice

Once again, British justice has been perverted by a criminal-friendly judge who has allowed two vicious thugs to escape custodial sentences for viciously beating up an innocent man – despite the fact that the pair of scumbags were obviously unrepentant for their vicious crime. It started when 24-year old Joseph O’Reilly (left) was walking with his girlfriend, sales adviser Lucy Blackledge (22) outside Piccadilly station in the centre of Manchester in January last year. They were heading home when they saw the three hooligans walking towards them aggressively, tipping over rubbish bins and scattering their contents in the road.

Like any decent, civic-minded citizen, Mr O’Reilly challenged their boorish behaviour by asking: “What on Earth are you doing?” But in what has now become an all-too- familiar pattern, the thugs responded by viciously attacking Mr O’Reilly.

First the cowardly, yellow-bellied, lily-livered little Mama’s Boy Thomas Lane (a 24-year-old sign writer from Stockport), feigned punches against Mr O’Reilly that he didn’t have the guts to actually throw. Then the similarly spineless Daniel Chrapkowski (24) – knowing that he had the backing of his mates – punched Mr O’Reilly in the face and then tripped him up in a well-coordinated move. (Although the attack was supposedly spontaneous, the routine was quite well-polished. These little boys knew that they were doing.)

After the thugs had brought their victim to fall to the pavement, they continued with their little-boys-playing-at-being-men routine by viciously punching and kicking Mr O’Reilly in the face and stomach before running off like the namby-pamby little squirts they really are. The thugs also included Oliver O’Neill, 23 of Bramhall, Stockport.

Mr O’Reilly sustained a broken jaw and bleeding to the brain and required a metal plate fitted into his face. He needed 40 hours of hospital treatment and had to go back into hospital several months after the attack after collapsing. Although only 24, his life has been ruined by these young thugs – who were presumably brought up by the scum of the earth. Mr O’Reilly still suffers severe dizzy spells and numbness in his mouth and can chew food on only one side of his mouth.

The experience has also affected him psychologically as he now worries about going out alone from his home in east Manchester.

But the worst was yet to come because when the crime came to court, the threesome – aided by smooth talking lawyers and the connivance of a criminal-friendly judge – were able to pervert justice by getting away with excessively lenient sentences.

Firstly the spineless Thomas Lane claimed that that he had made no physical contact with the victim. He disingenuously described his aggressive feigning of punches towards his wholly innocent victim – the event that triggered the violence – as “shadow boxing” and was allowed to plead guilty to affray rather than Grievous Bodily Harm. His lawyer, Paul Hodgkinson, said: “He accepts he had been out drinking and engaging in tomfoolery, but that mischief doesn’t cross the custody threshold.”

Now there’s a dishonest statement if ever there was one. It was not “tomfoolery” or “mischief” that Lane was engaged in, but thuggery. And his lawyer well-knows it. This is an example of the way in which lawyers use language in a conscious effort to cheat justice.

The unemployed (and unemployable?) Daniel Chrapkowski admitted causing grievous bodily harm but his lawyer Katie Jones, falsely claimed that “He is extremely remorseful and wishes to apologise to the court. It is extremely out of character.” We saw just how remorseful he was just a few minutes later when this picture was taken outside the court building.

At Manchester Crown Court, Judge Martin Steiger QC, who decided earlier in the week to pass non-custodial sentences on Chrapkowski and Lane, instead gave Chrapkowski a 12-month suspended sentence.  He also ordered that he be electronically tagged for two months and complete 160 hours unpaid “community service” – which as we all know is a joke that basically means sitting around for two hours reading the newspaper.

The spineless, sissy-boy Thomas Lane was given a 12 month community order, ordered to pay £250 costs and do 120 hours community service. He also has to comply with a curfew.

23-year old Oliver O’Neill, who was on bail for another attack at the time, was jailed for 27 months after pleading guilty to two other grievous bodily harm charges.

But that’s not the end of the matter, because the two who did not get the custodial sentences that they deserved demonstrated their dishonesty, arrogance and contempt for the law outside the court as these pictures show.

The question is, did their lawyers really think their clients were remorseful. The law holds that lawyers represent their clients and act on their client’s instructions. But would such stupid people as Thomas Lane and Daniel Chrapkowski have had the brains to pretend they were remorseful in court, if some one had not put the idea in their heads? Clearly their behaviour outside the court suggest that they were not clever enough to have thought of it by themselves. So some one must have told them to pretend that they were remorseful to get lower sentences.

I wonder who.

 

Learco Chindamo, the murderer of Philip Lawrence has been acquitted of robbery, along with his co-defendants Gregory Jananto and Saeed Akhtar.

The prosecution case was that the three of them surrounded 20-year-old David Sexton when he withdrew money from a cash machine. Prosecutor, Alison Morgan, told the court: “Mr Chindamo came towards Mr Sexton saying words to the effect of, ‘Do you know who I am?’ and ‘Do you remember about the headteacher in Maida Vale?’ The Crown say that this was quite plainly and deliberately a reference to his conviction designed to intimidate and threaten Mr Sexton.”

Sexton testified that Chindamo asked him “Do you know who I am? Do you know what I’ve done?” According to another prosecutor, Oliver Glasgow, when Sexton answered in the negative, Chindamo “asked for compensation for disrespecting him and his friends.” Sexton also testified that co-defendant, Gregory Jananto was armed with a large empty glass bottle which he waved around by the neck and that it was in response to this threat that he handed over money because he feared that if he turned his back he would be assaulted from behind.

The defence claimed that Sexton had “disrespected” Chindamo by calling him a “killer” Chindamo’s testimony was that “a male who had withdrawn money” had shouted “Killer” at him. Chindamo claimed that he “lectured the male on why I was not proud of what I had done.” Jananto backed up this version of events, whilst admitting that he himself had been aggressive.  He also described David Sexton as “cocky.”

Now here the dispute takes a somewhat surreal turn because the defence lawyers further claimed that Mr Sexton then handed over £10 as a “peace offering” of his own free will.  This is preposterous.  The jury found the accused Not Guilty (as opposed to “innocent”) in accordance with the legal rule that a jury must acquit if they think that there is reasonable doubt.  But this does not mean that Sexton freely handed over the money by choice in the absence of substantial fear for his safety.

There are in fact several points that this case raises.

First of all, Chindamo claimed in the trial (and indeed claimed when he successfully applied for release on licence for the Philip Lawrence murder) that he regretted murdering an innocent and courageous man. Given that Chindamo is a killer – indeed a murderer – why should he take offence at being called one? Should he be “lecturing” the person (who made that truthful comment) on what he is or isn’t proud of?  Or should he be showing, by his demeanour, that he is not proud of what he did? Indeed, should he not accept such a truthful comment with the humility that is befitting the repentant murderer that Chindamo claims to be? Would not a genuinely reformed murderer have quietly walked away? The answer is, of course, yes: a genuinely reformed and repentant murderer would have quietly walked away.

Secondly, are we really to believe that David Sexton was bold enough to insult Chindamo in the first place and then became so frightened (without anyone trying to intimidate him) that he voluntarily handed over money that had not been demanded? I can picture a man being bold enough to truthfully call Chindamo a killer – or even a murderer – to his face. I can picture a man being so frightened of Chindamo as to hand over money to him without being threatened. But I cannot imagine these two characteristics in the same man at substantially the same time. And I don’t think anyone can – except perhaps a devious defence lawyer who can talk bullshit with a straight face.

Thirdly, why was Chindamo even associating with Jananto, given that they had both been members of the same criminal gang. Even if it was not a condition of his licence to refrain from such association (and it is amazing that it was not), surely he should have known better?

And finally, if money had been offered in the circumstances that Chindamo claims, would not a citizen who respects the law have refused to accept it? Of course he would. And every honest lawyer knows it.