Our thanks to Francis for this. From the article:
Timney claimed she was drunk and hadn’t intended to seriously hurt Miss Hale. [A cast-iron defence for men who injure people.] She was handed an 18-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months.
Then the inevitable nonsense from the judge:
Sentencing Timney, Judge Stephen Earl said: ‘This is a case where, for no good reason at all save for drunkenness on your part to the point you can’t recall, you acted so far out of character. This short moment of madness in behaviour nevertheless has consequences, not only for her but also for you.
‘The facial scar is very important, especially in the context of this particular victim, not just in the short-term but the effects it has on her in the medium and long-term on her confidence.’
Judge Earl added: ‘There is a need to send out a very clear message to others that such behaviour will not be tolerated by the courts.’
There is a need to do that. So why didn’t Judge Earl do it?
