From the sound of this report from the Guardian is seems some of them we're expecting to get a slap on the wrist. Police officer on radio was very pleased as two years is a very long sentance for such young children.
Five boys who hurled stones, chunks of wood and abuse at a father playing cricket with his son, triggering a fatal heart attack, burst into tears yesterday as an Old Bailey jury convicted them of manslaughter and violent disorder.
They clutched their parents in the dock at the end of a month-long trial which heard how they had carried out the vicious onslaught when none of them was over 12 and one had just turned 10.
Among the youngest defendants to appear at the central criminal court, they were bailed for reports before sentencing by a judge who earlier warned about their behaviour during the hearing.
After Old Bailey staff complained of the five wandering around, hanging out of windows and potentially causing mischief, Judge Warwick McKinnon ordered the boys' parents to keep them under control.
Even after that, one of the defendants screwed up his jumper into a pillow and dozed off during the trial, which was conducted informally without wigs or robes. The misbehaviour coincided with prosecution arguments to the jury that the boys' youth was no excuse for their attack and they knew their violence was wrong.
Their victim was 67-year-old Ernest Norton, described as an easy-going house husband, who was giving informal cricket practice to his teenage son James while his wife used the nearby gym at Erith leisure centre, in Kent, in February last year.
The court heard that Mr Norton and James, who was 17 at the time and getting ready for A-levels, had just set up stumps in an open-air tennis court when about 20 boys arrived and started hurling abuse.
After shouts such as "Rubbish bowler" and "Get back to the old people's home", Mr Norton went to confront the crowd and was met with spitting and a hail of missiles. He was hit by half-a-dozen stones and bits of broken plank.
One rock, the size of half a brick, hit him on the temple and a second, not much smaller, fractured his cheekbone. As his son watched incredulously, he fell to the ground with a heart attack.
David Fisher QC, prosecuting, told the jury that the boys had been roaming the area earlier, looking for trouble. They had arranged a gang fight but were scared off by a passer-by who confiscated a baseball bat one of them was carrying.
They turned to smashing windows in an empty factory before deciding to hang around the leisure centre, aiming verbal abuse at staff. The arrival of the Nortons gave them an easy target.
"We were keeping ourselves to ourselves," James told the trial. "It seemed they just wanted to pick on someone."
The boys belonged to a local gang called TNE - for The New Estate - but Nicholas Valios QC, for the youngest defendant, asked the jury not to be swayed by current publicity about gang culture. "Every day one has read about gangs killing, knifing, shooting and terrorising estates. That really isn't so in this case."
As an off-duty police officer and other passers-by tried to help Mr Norton, the court heard, the boys ran off. One was heard saying "I think I got him", but another, in tears as he struggled to keep up with the pack, kept shouting: "He's dead, he's dead."
Only one of the five, now 14, gave evidence, admitting that he spat at Mr Norton and that his behaviour had been "stupid, revolting and appalling". He told the court that he had thrown stones but only to try to topple the stumps and wreck the Nortons' game "for a bit of fun".
Mrs Norton's wife, Linda, 56, who was fetched from the gym by James and held her husband's hand as he died, said that he had been fit and well and led an active life after heart bypass surgery in 1977.
0
Comments
You can divide adult sentences by two to arrive at the "real" rather than "headline" sentence.
Should have been 5 years. At least that way they would have served 2-3 years and it would hopefully act as a deterrant to others.
Maybe they will come out worse than when they went it (which is the arguement for NOT sending people to prison) but maybe the message to other kids like them is that you could go away. Hopefully a few will think twice next time.
who can tell but the report reads like they saw the court case as a big joke and then reality hit when they found out they were going away. Good. Maybe too late for them but as I say perhaps a deterent for others and they won't kill anyone while they are inside.
Which is pretty hard when the parents don't show respect for others...
Back to the topic I agree that ultimately the parents and their peers need to teach consideration (Only Aretha should be allowed to use the 'R' word) for others but these sentances may wake up a few parents as well.
As for deterrents for children this young I think they are more likely to work at a younger age when children are more impressionable and not so fixed in their thinking and attitudes.
I did a lot of work with the police on low-level nuisance behaviour when I was on the council and they were very good at addressing it within the constraints of their resources. The problem is that the kids need reining in by adults before they get to the stage where they are a problem to others and that has not been happening.
Of course the kids are going to be a problem if the parents don't have those values in the first place.
like most things, they're only a deterent to otherwise law-abiding citizens...'most people' isn't everybody...
This is an interesting statement even if it was made jokingly. What is 'respect'?
I always think the word 'respect' is over-used. I ask myself if you can 'respect' someone you don't know or know nothing about. Is it possible? You can show consideration and even compassion but not respect. Discuss.
That's what I was hinting at. The 'R' word is now used to mean "verify my status and worth by not challenging me and accepting everything I say at face value" and not just by kids.
Consideration is the realisation that your actions and words have an impact on others and acting accordingly.
And those people get caught which is why cameras work. Whether those people are otherwise law abiding is not the point, the cameras and the increased possibility of being caught has altered their behaviour
QED
All good arguements for speed cameras as they are obviously so effective that they are driving law breakers to ever more desperate, and so detectable, methods to avoid them.
Another interesting debate.
LOL but you certainly give then consideration
full story - it's now going to the Old Bailey. This ain't going to help anyone.
I remember when I first heard this story thinking I was glad they had to serve some time for their behaviour but this just sends out the wrong impression completely.
This makes me very sad and angry!
I am be a decent law abiding citizen, perhaps drive a bit too quickly from time to time yet I pay fortunes in income tax, I get raped for car insurance every year and so on.......yet as soon as I get caught speeding I am treated like public enemy number one and the scum of the earth. No leniency whatsoever
these little shits will get away with this and carry on being little shits
Grrrrrrrrrrrr