Presumably he wouldn’t have assaulted a woman who was similarly exposed – so this is really a hate crime, whether or not the victim is gay.
Dave calls it right.
I suspect Liam would have probably taken advanatge of said drunk woman and would now be facing a rape charge. Pretty much says it all about Liam don’t it?
Plymouth , where aggressive and violent behaviour is inbred , it is a garrison town.
> Presumably he wouldn’t have assaulted a woman who was similarly exposed – so this is really a hate crime, whether or not the victim is gay.
I agree. Whether or not the victim is gay, the attack was on the grounds of perceived sexuality.
Dave Wainwright, I that is a massively ignorant comment to make. How dare you associate one equally ignorant persons actions with our link to the armed forces. I have always found Plymouth to be a place where people are quite accepting, it has its problems like all towns, but this is ever decreasing. I am proud to be plymouthian and to come from a service family!
Incredible. This inbred idiot was quite rightly told he can ´expect a custodial sentence´…. then released on bail… why?
Hang on, we don’t know what would have happened if the victim would have been a woman. We can’t say how he would have behaved.
However, the guy clearly has serious issues and needs help.
I don’t like the way the guy used ‘thought he was gay’ as an excuse. To me, it seems as though he thought he’d be treated more leniently that way if he said that, and that that would make his unprovoked attack more ‘understandable’.
If violent thugs are getting short shrift from the courts inspite of claiming that someone of the same sex ‘came on’ to them, it can only be a good thing. It was an effective defence not so long ago on the homophobic assumption that such an approach was a terrible trauma. Onward and upward, let’s hope.
“f violent thugs are getting short shrift from the courts inspite of claiming that someone of the same sex ‘came on’ to them, it can only be a good thing.”
Indeed, but that ignores the point I made above?
If this thug got ´short shrift´ from the court… Why did he in fact get bail? He has been told to expect a lengthy custodial sentence, so why give him bail? This nutter should clearly be locked up?
Not really my idea of ´short shrift´ !
As a magistrate in the south west, perhhaps I can help explain why the defendant was given bail.
Where a custodial sentence is likely, magistrates are obliged to order a ‘pre-sentence report’ that sets out the defendant’s attitudes and responses to various questions, so giving an indication of what kind of disposal would best suit the magistrates needs (it might be punishment, rehabilitation, protection of the public etc).
This information is then used at a hearing to determine what sentence would be appropriate, and if a custodial sentence is called for, how long that might be. Granting the defendant bail is the default position unless the bench felt that he might commit further offences, abscond or threaten other people involved in the trial. It’s most likely (and I’m guessing here) that there would have been conditions imposed on his bail that would prevent him from approaching the victim, visiting local pubs or even a curfew.
It is always difficult to comment on any case like this when the published news is so partial (not a particular criticism of Pink News – they are constraints of time and space), but looks like a good result to me.
This sounds like a variant of the old “Portsmouth defence”- I hit him because he came on to me. Which never quite explained why the defendant also took his wallet in such cases and felt the need to put the boot in repeatedly etc.
In this case, in addition to the reasons cited by John E, the bail decision is also perhaps because keeping people in custody is expensive and a judgement is made as to whether the defendant is likely to flee or re-commit before sentencing.