Godfrey's Gospel: Assault case verdict is an affront to justice

ONCE upon a time there was hardly an assault carried out in this country. Yes, there were scuffles in pubs and on the street, but not the level of violence we see today.

Every day we hear or read about someone, irrespective of sex or age, who has had life-altering injuries inflicted on them because of an assault. We also hear of people dying because of injuries inflicted on them.

But I genuinely believe these are only the tip of the iceberg. Last week, we saw a 22-year-old soldier walking away from court with a suspended sentence for assault - to which he pleaded guilty -even though he had inflicted a litany of horrific injuries on his victim, who lost her job on top of everything else because of the traumatic injuries she received.

The judge in this case said he was fully suspending a three-year jail sentence because he did not want the defendant to lose his job. But what about the victim?

I’m sure she believes she didn’t get justice for what happened to her, even though the defendant boasted about what he had done online with remarks such as ‘two to put her down and two to knock her out'. Afterwards, justice minister Helen McEntee did point out on radio that she had consistently seen cases where assaults had taken place and the sentence imposed did not seem strong enough. With that in mind, she had introduced legislation to double sentences from five years to ten years. Also, if a person is giving a character reference on behalf of a defendant, they should be prepared to stand over it and be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. That is something which will be enacted within the coming months.

The minister also agreed that the state has a long way to go when it comes to violence against women, describing violence towards women as an epidemic.

All very good, you would say, but there is no use in having legislation on the books if those who have the power to use it decide otherwise. Is it really good enough to give a suspended sentence to someone just so they can keep their job?

I don’t care if alcohol or drugs are involved. If someone decides to inflict injury on someone else, they should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.

It is no use going into court, apologising for their actions and promising not to do it again - if there is no pain, so to speak, they will revert to norm again and again.

Let’s be honest, most of us have seen people, mostly women, with bruises they cannot fully explain if asked about them, or seem to make a habit of falling and breaking the odd bone or two.

Ask any medical professional who works in an A&E and they will tell you that not a week goes by but they see the actions of some bright spark who believes he had the right to inflict injury on others.

It never ceased to amaze me the neck of some people when I covered the courts. They had no problem approaching me after a case against them was heard where they had punched, beaten and intimidated family members to the point where their so-called loved ones lived in fear.

One man in particular approached me one day looking for his name to be kept out of the paper after he was convicted of assaulting his wife. His excuse: he ‘loved her too much’. Whoever taught him the meaning of love certainly got matters mixed up. I told him he hadn’t a hope, so his next excuse was he would lose his job if his boss found out. I replied that was a matter for him and his boss. He had got to court all on his own without any help from me.

The case appeared in the paper, but to the best of my knowledge the man didn’t lose his job. What did happen was that he and other members of his extended family - not the injured party - gave me the death stare whenever they saw me on the street and never spoke to me again. It was all my fault.

You might laugh and say surely times have changed. Sadly, the court case last week shows we really haven’t moved on that much.