The Herald has been in court, and has reported on five cases where they summarise the case, tell you what sentence the person got, and ask people what sentence they would have given.
The first case is of Nathan Wynd who followed a workmate, kicked him in the head, knocked him to the ground, punched his face several times and rubbed an empty beer bottle in his face. Who knows where it may have ended if the Police had not walked by.
They cite five aggravating features – violence to the head, a bottle as a weapon, high harm to the victim, serious injuries that resulted in hospital treatment and premeditation. The only mitigating issue was the early guilty plea (tempered by the fact the Police caught him doing it).
They say that the starting point for an offence of this type is two years nine months, yet despite the five aggravating features he got just two years. He did also get a first strike which I think will be a significant deterrent.
The maximum sentence possible is seven years. You wonder what it would take to get that?
You can vote on what sentence you would have given. I went for three years. However 42% picked five or more years and only 22% picked two years or less. 34% chose three or four years.
I can’t get the other four cases to load. It would be interesting to see for those the difference between sentences given and the most common sentences chosen by the readers.Tags: law & order, NZ Herald