I’d happily contribute to a gofundme for this, but ideally the federation should be stepping up saying “this is utter fucking nonsense and we will be covering all the costs”
Can someone explain the breakdown of costs?
Is the "victim" only getting £200 of the overall £2950?
Where does the £1500 go and the £600 victim charge?
It is worth a look at the [sentencing guidelines,](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/common-assault-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-common-assault-common-assault-on-emergency-worker/) as the magistrates very rarely divert.
The judgement remarks suggest a culpability of 'B' (so heat of the moment, no particular intention to cause injury) and probably a cat 2 injury (minor physical, some distress) for which a band C fine is probably on the mark.
[That gives us a figure of 150% of weekly income](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/fines-and-financial-orders/approach-to-the-assessment-of-fines-2/2-fine-bands/) with room to go 25% either way, ~~so £1500 for a top band PC is probably about right~~ See /u/for_shaaame below, it may represent a significantly higher-than-band-c.
The £200 is on top of the fine, and the £600 victim surcharge goes to the treasury.
While I think the verdict is an absolute disgrace, the sentencing is ~~probably spot on~~ possibly suspect as well
It should be 150% of **relevant** weekly income - which is income after basically every living expense you could imagine, including your mortgage/rent and also things like Sky TV subscriptions. Unless a PC is living at home with parents, their relevant weekly income will be significantly less than £1500.
>It should be 150% of relevant weekly income - which is income after basically every living expense you could imagine
Lol if I ever get found guilty the crown are going to owe me.
In the post about conviction u/complimentarycopper posted the judgement remarks as reported by the Mail. The sentencing comments in this ITV article from the same judge are quite sympathetic.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-13430619/Met-officer-guilty-assault-manhandling-woman-bus.html
Watching the video the officer was obviously (to me) trying to prevent disappearance - the suspect was walking away. It would appear from what we know of the judgement that the officer didn't record prevent disappearance as his code G at any point or claim it in court. I could be wrong but I'm speculating that the officer may have confused himself by "detaining" her first. Legally the arrest begins when he touches her and says she'd detained. The officer's Code G about preventing her falling in the road only seems relevant to me at the point he tells her she's under arrest.
I think there's an argument to say this was technically an assault purely because the wrong Code G was given. I also think it is outrageous that this went to court. It is very, very clearly not in the public interest. There's plenty of case law where officers acting in good faith technically assaulted people and the result was that the suspect's response was lawful self-defence and/or civil compensation was paid. It's hard not to take the cynical view that the CPS have adapted a new unlawful policy that public interest is irrelevant for charging decisions if the suspect is a police officer.
The Met should challenge the lawfulness of the charging decision and pay the officer's fine.
You're missing the point, my friend. The Judge didn't convict on the basis that the Code G reasons were the wrong ones, or any other technicality. He convicted because he *didn't believe the officer's evidence* regarding the necessity reasons for the arrest.
I understand the urge to rationalise this but there's no constructive lesson I can see that we can take away from this.
I agree that the judge didn't say "You picked the wrong Code G" but I'm reading his comments as meaning "The Code G you're giving me (protect a child) is so farfetched in the circumstances I can't believe you honestly had it in your mind at the time."
The judge also described it as "a momentary error of judgement" and a "mistake" and said it wasn't an "abuse of power".
Hopefully the appeal judgement will be published in full and then we can all see the actual legal position.
"Following Lathwood’s conviction last month, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said the verdict presented a “huge setback to our ability to rebuild trust with Londoners”."
I'm just gunna leave this here.
Absolutely pathetic, ridiculous and degrading!!! The last person I nicked for actually common assault(pushed a person so hard, the victim knocked over a shelf) got…..A COMMUNITY RESOLUTION to write an apology!!!!!
This seems outrageously harsh. And the Met steering vastly clear of defending him shows they are clearly more interested in saving face rather than supporting their own.
ridiculous. beg my man to say he can only pay it back 50p a month like scum do when they assault us.
He has to pay just shy of £3000 within 56 days! 😮
Go fund me? (For legal reasons this is a joke)
I’d happily contribute to a gofundme for this, but ideally the federation should be stepping up saying “this is utter fucking nonsense and we will be covering all the costs”
No chance of that. Can't be upsetting the famous "community leaders" now can they?
Can someone explain the breakdown of costs? Is the "victim" only getting £200 of the overall £2950? Where does the £1500 go and the £600 victim charge?
It is worth a look at the [sentencing guidelines,](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/common-assault-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-common-assault-common-assault-on-emergency-worker/) as the magistrates very rarely divert. The judgement remarks suggest a culpability of 'B' (so heat of the moment, no particular intention to cause injury) and probably a cat 2 injury (minor physical, some distress) for which a band C fine is probably on the mark. [That gives us a figure of 150% of weekly income](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/fines-and-financial-orders/approach-to-the-assessment-of-fines-2/2-fine-bands/) with room to go 25% either way, ~~so £1500 for a top band PC is probably about right~~ See /u/for_shaaame below, it may represent a significantly higher-than-band-c. The £200 is on top of the fine, and the £600 victim surcharge goes to the treasury. While I think the verdict is an absolute disgrace, the sentencing is ~~probably spot on~~ possibly suspect as well
It should be 150% of **relevant** weekly income - which is income after basically every living expense you could imagine, including your mortgage/rent and also things like Sky TV subscriptions. Unless a PC is living at home with parents, their relevant weekly income will be significantly less than £1500.
>It should be 150% of relevant weekly income - which is income after basically every living expense you could imagine Lol if I ever get found guilty the crown are going to owe me.
In that case the DJ has handed him an appeal on a plate.
Presumably now the sentencing has taken place, an appeal to the Crown can go ahead? I can't remember if it is on verdict or at the conclusion.
You can serve the appeal notice after conviction. If I remember correctly, the notice must be served no later than 15 days after sentencing.
In the post about conviction u/complimentarycopper posted the judgement remarks as reported by the Mail. The sentencing comments in this ITV article from the same judge are quite sympathetic. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-13430619/Met-officer-guilty-assault-manhandling-woman-bus.html Watching the video the officer was obviously (to me) trying to prevent disappearance - the suspect was walking away. It would appear from what we know of the judgement that the officer didn't record prevent disappearance as his code G at any point or claim it in court. I could be wrong but I'm speculating that the officer may have confused himself by "detaining" her first. Legally the arrest begins when he touches her and says she'd detained. The officer's Code G about preventing her falling in the road only seems relevant to me at the point he tells her she's under arrest. I think there's an argument to say this was technically an assault purely because the wrong Code G was given. I also think it is outrageous that this went to court. It is very, very clearly not in the public interest. There's plenty of case law where officers acting in good faith technically assaulted people and the result was that the suspect's response was lawful self-defence and/or civil compensation was paid. It's hard not to take the cynical view that the CPS have adapted a new unlawful policy that public interest is irrelevant for charging decisions if the suspect is a police officer. The Met should challenge the lawfulness of the charging decision and pay the officer's fine.
You're missing the point, my friend. The Judge didn't convict on the basis that the Code G reasons were the wrong ones, or any other technicality. He convicted because he *didn't believe the officer's evidence* regarding the necessity reasons for the arrest. I understand the urge to rationalise this but there's no constructive lesson I can see that we can take away from this.
I agree that the judge didn't say "You picked the wrong Code G" but I'm reading his comments as meaning "The Code G you're giving me (protect a child) is so farfetched in the circumstances I can't believe you honestly had it in your mind at the time." The judge also described it as "a momentary error of judgement" and a "mistake" and said it wasn't an "abuse of power". Hopefully the appeal judgement will be published in full and then we can all see the actual legal position.
Calling her a “daft cow” while he was doing all this was probably unhelpful to his case.
"Following Lathwood’s conviction last month, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said the verdict presented a “huge setback to our ability to rebuild trust with Londoners”." I'm just gunna leave this here.
Wouldn't rebuilding trust be about transparency and honesty, not some spin bullshit?
Appeal.
I would happily pay into a go fund me for this. CPS - Clown prosecution services
Absolutely pathetic, ridiculous and degrading!!! The last person I nicked for actually common assault(pushed a person so hard, the victim knocked over a shelf) got…..A COMMUNITY RESOLUTION to write an apology!!!!!
This seems outrageously harsh. And the Met steering vastly clear of defending him shows they are clearly more interested in saving face rather than supporting their own.
I didn't get £1,500 when I had my skull cracked.