JUSTICE: Too much to ask?

JUDGES' DECISIONS: Do we need a review to allow proper sentencing? Photo: Shutterstock

WHAT must it be like to be a dedicated police officer who, through hard work, dedication (and probably a mountain of paperwork), finally manages to get a perpetrator into court, only to see them walk away free, because some bewigged berk decides that he or she deserves some form of leniency!  

These High Court clowns are often so unbelievably out of touch and pompous they are probably more familiar with ‘passing the port’ than passing appropriate sentences.  Their naive lack of judgements must also, I’m sure, profoundly dampen any enthusiasm or confidence the officers involved have for the legal system that they are expected to support and act for.   They must often feel like technicians who’ve created an intricate piece of valuable machinery, only to see their employers stick it on Ebay at a knockdown price.                                                                                       

-- Advertisement --

How can this incompetent bunch consider themselves impartial purveyors of British justice, when every week up pops yet another example of their utter inadequacy in matters of criminal retribution?

Just last week there was yet another glaring example of their judicial incompetence.

It concerned a burglar with a long record of offences who had broken into the home of a pregnant woman while her husband was out at work. Petrified, the poor woman was hiding in the bathroom when the husband came home unexpectantly and confronted the intruder. As he grappled with him, the young thug called to his mate outside that he was caught. “Stab the f….., “screamed his mate. “Just stab him and get out of there.” With this threat of serious injury highly possible, the husband let the man go and he escaped with an Armani watch, cash and gift cards. The victim’s poor wife subsequently suffered a miscarriage which was later directly attributed to the traumatic experience of the raid.

Due to dedicated police efforts, the perpetrator was caught and finally brought to Court where he admitted the crime, and also owned up to a later offence where he had threatened another victim with a hammer in the process of a further robbery, whilst on bail.

Obviously this man was a hardened criminal and should have been sent down for a considerable length of time – WRONG!  Judge Sylvia Carter was swayed by his defence lawyer and decided that he had been “Egged on by his mates!” She sentenced him to twelve months community service and he walked free from the Court.  I mean, just how naive can you get? This lowlife was probably out plundering some other poor victim’s house the same night.

If I were the Police I’d be spitting nails at this result of my endeavours, and, at the very least, it would sorely discourage me from putting my best efforts into any subsequent investigations.

It’s a review of our non-sackable Judges that we need. Perhaps if we see some proper sentencing from these privileged pillocks it would encourage more people to join the force and hopefully raise the morale of those already serving.

Perhaps this would also lead to the public feeling a little safer. Or is that really too much to ask?


Keep the Faith

Love Leapy


*Leapy Lee’s opinions are his own and not necessarily representative of those of the publishers, advertisers or sponsors.


  1. I certainly agree that, on the face of it, the sentence issued by Judge Sylvia Carter seems very lenient. However we and Leapy were not present throughout the trial. We did not hear all the evidence. We were not party to the background reports as the judge was. We don’t know if there will be an appeal against the apparent leniency. And we were not on the jury. These are just some of the checks and balances in our justice system, which Leapy does not mention of course. In short, all we know is Leapy’s opinion. I am truly sorry that I feel compelled to say this, but I cannot help wondering is there just a hint of sour grapes in his story because of the relative severity of a sentence handed out by a different judge back when Leapy was in his thirties? Just asking? And don’t you think the picture he presents of judges being “naive”, “incompetent” and “passing the port” is just a wee bit out of date? And would that assessment apply to an experienced female judge like Sylvia Carter? As I say, just asking.

  2. We must be channelling. The major difference here seems to be that in this case he didn’t actually stick the knife in. To his credit, in spite of the rest of it. According to the sentence handed down to Leapy, he did use the knife. Not to his credit. Hence perhaps the difference. “Sour grapes” was my first thought, also. If you are looking for a judge to attack, Leapy, try having a go at the one who just showed extraordinary bias in dealing with Julian Assange.

    • Do you really want to “do away with Juries” Edgar? That’s what military dictatorships do. Keeps the population nicely under control in banana republics. Puts an end to all that annoying freedom of the press and free speech among the proletariat! Creats a utopia – for the people in control.

  3. What a splendid idea, Edgar. Politically appointed judges with no restraints. That is why we have juries; to try to bring some balance between accuser and defender. It might be pertinent here to remind both yourself and Leapy that there is such a thing as presumption of innocence. In case you forgot. I realize that some people think that street justice is to be condoned but we should all try to remember where that leads to. A very bad time for minorities, non hetero groups, gypsies, dissenters, foreigners, and of course, members of certain religious groups. We are sleepwalking closer and closer to a repeat of history. Though this time around we may not be the good guys. On a different note, Brexit seems to be going along nicely!

  4. Only comment I have is what do judges know about real life. Houses they live in when appearing in various courts are guarded 24 hrs a day whether occupied or not. So no chance of them being attacked. We cannot sack them so no problem if they mistakes as they often do. How much of the tax payers money was spent locating &n charging them. Only to get community service. Which 99% of time they will not attend & nobody can do anything about it.
    I see the couple of dead beats are back on Lee’s Column EAGLESON who cannot help but bring up Lee’s case. & Ofcournse WHITTINGHAM who only comments in this Column because seething Jealousy of Lee : Get a Life You TWO !!!

    • A good rule when dealing with other people is to treat them the same way you would want to be treated yourself. When listening to what they have to say, it’s a good idea to listen carefully so that you fully understand their point of view. Then when you reply you should be respectful and polite, especially if you disagree with them. Disrespectful, abusive or violent behaviour should never be employed. Nobody was ever won over by insults, abuse or bullying tactics. Gentle persuasion works best. A bit of humour now and then can help. Why did the dinosaur cross the road? Because chickens hadn’t been invented yet. 😉

  5. Hi Brian
    Wrong again !!!!!!!!!!!! As usual !!!!!!!!! No Roads when Dinosaurs were about !!!!!!!!! So how did they Cross One ???
    Still at least a reply with out a Dig at Leapy so that is Some Improvement


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here