The BBC is reporting that "A boy who drove a stolen car into a pedestrian just hours after he was released from a youth detention centre has been jailed indefinitely".
Judge Anthony James Hammond jailed him indefinitely, describing him as a danger to the public.
He must serve at least three years before being considered for parole and banned for applying for a driving licence for five years.
The judge said: "You are a defendant who is highly likely to commit further dangerous offences and you are highly likely to cause death or serious harm to others."
Whilst accepting that he must serve at least 3 years does not necessarily mean he will only serve 3 years, nevertheless I am puzzled why the judge did not impose a sentence of Her Majesty's Pleasure? If any offence and any offender warranted a life imprisonment it was this case. It is cases like this which make a mockery of justice and lead to claims that sentences do not say what they should say. In my view, this person should not see light of day for at least 15-20 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment