Policeman pushed onto a railway line. Suspended jail for the perpetrator

[theageofthetra]

Another sickening let off.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/20/trans...to-tube-tracks-four-bottles-prosecco-7327703/

Paris Valeta-Bregazzi, 30, pushed off-duty PC Sam Chegwin off the platform after he intervened during a row she was having with her friend identified only as Tom at Hanger Lane tube station in west London.

PC Chegwin heard shouting and told her to calm down, and she replied he ‘should mind his own business, as she wasn’t talking to him.’

Valeta-Bregazzi pleaded guilty last November to one count of an unlawful act with intent to endanger a person on a railway...

 

[jon0844]

If it hadn't been a police officer it would have apparently been justified for the attack?

 

[Ambient Sheep]

It does seem unduly lenient but on the other hand it seems she largely got off because her push was a spontaneous reaction to being pushed on a fresh operation scar, and that no malice was intended. Said the judge:

‘Mr Chegwin pushed you genuinely believing that it was necessary in order to fend off the risk of violence unfolding, and in order to minimise any possible danger to the public.

‘And I don’t criticise his decision in any way. However, it is clear to me from having viewed the CCTV that you reacted spontaneously.

‘You had significant surgery on the part of the body in which he made contact, although he didn’t know it.

‘Furthermore, you didn’t appear to me, having viewed the CCTV, to have formed any malign intent.

‘But to have reacted spontaneously without appreciating the ramifications of what it is you were doing.

‘That’s my view of the facts in this case. Having said that, the consequences of what you did were serious.

‘And your error of judgement is a matter to be noted, as one which could have caused, as I have indicated, far greater ramifications.

‘Mr Chegwin was acting in a public spirited manner by intervening and seeking to prevent the escalation of violence.

‘I have no criticism of him. He didn’t appreciate that he was making physical contact with a person, being yourself, or special vulnerability.

‘You must understand that you have to control yourself.’

(emphasis mine)

Given that, I can just about understand it.

Thing is, given her lengthy criminal record It looks as if she'll end up inside anyway as I doubt she'll manage to keep her nose clean for the next two years.

 

[6Gman]

None of us (I presume) were in Court to hear all the evidence.

Just saying.

 

[Sirgerbil]

None of us (I presume) were in Court to hear all the evidence.

Just saying.

Nothing justify's pushing someone onto the track with possible fatal consequences.

Just saying.

 

[Wirewiper]

She was sentenced to six months - that is still regarded as a custodial sentence and counts towards a criminal record as such, even if it is suspended for two years. She has not been "let off" in any sense of the word that I recognise.

There are mitigating factors:

- She pleaded guilty. That usually pre-disposes a judge to be more lenient.

- She has known mental health issues.

- In the opinion of the judge, the act in itself was not pre-meditated.

 

[theageofthetra]

Nothing justify's pushing someone onto the track with possible fatal consequences.

Just saying.

Exactly. That was an Underground station, I wonder how close the nearest train was?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Exactly. That was an Underground station, I wonder how close the nearest train was?

Usually anything from 90 seconds to 3 min headways on the core sections. There are a few live rails down there as well ....

 

[Ambient Sheep]

Nothing justify's pushing someone onto the track with possible fatal consequences.

I'll say again, in the judge's opinion her intention wasn't to push the guy onto the tracks. He pushed her, she shoved him back considerably harder 'cos he'd caught her somewhere unexpectedly tender due to a recent operation, he ended up on the tracks.

 

[yorkie]

We are unduly lenient when it comes to violent acts. I've done battle with one or two forum members on this subject in the past, so I risk

All sorts of excuses can be trotted out eg. "potential for greatness in sport", to ensure that even if you have umpteen convictions for violent acts, you don't get to jail.

A current member of staff at York station was almost murdered (no I am not exaggerating; we were told he wasn't expected to survive) back when he was 15 and the perpetrator only got a 4 month detention and training order for a sickening attack; it was obvious the thug was going to attack others, and our ludicrous legal system allowed him to do so, though he still didn't get an appropriate sentence. The huge quantity of ferocious attacks he had to do before he could even be named was just unbelievable. We protect the wrongdoers in society to a ludicrous extent.

Nothing will change; the violent thugs and bullies know they can inflict a lot of harm before they even get a slap on the wrist. There is no effective punishment that our legal system can impose that can deter them from their acts.

I know one or two forum members hate me saying the above, but you know what? I know I am right in standing up for what I believe in; they can't stop me speaking the truth.

 

[Chris M]

Firstly, what on earth does her being transgender have to do with this matter? Yes that was (presumably) the reason she had surgery where she did, but that is far from the only surgery on that area of the body.

- She pleaded guilty. That usually pre-disposes a judge to be more lenient.

It's not a predisposition - it's a requirement. In most cases, pleading guilty at the first opportunity to do so means your sentence is reduced by a third. As both the incident and the plea were in November 2017 it seems very likely that she did indeed plead guilty at the first opportunity to do so.

The offence she was charged with, "an unlawful act on a railway with intent to endanger a person" (I think this comes from the Offences against the person act 1861) carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I've not been able to find the sentencing guidelines for this offence but the maximum sentence will only be appropriate in the most serious of circumstances (almost certainly requiring the intent to endanger many passengers), where there are multiple aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances. The actual sentencing range will likely have a lower maximum anyway. In this case we know there were several mitigating factors, most particularly that she did not intend to endanger him and her actions were spontaneous and instinctive rather than premeditated. The victim was also off duty (therefore not in uniform) and although he apparently did identify himself it is not recorded in the press whether she registered this - she was in the middle of an argument with a friend and told him to mind his own business so it is entirely possible she did not. If she did not register that he was a police officer and it was not otherwise obvious (as it would be if he was in uniform for example) then his being a police officer will unlikely have been seen as an aggravating factor by the court. On the other hand, her previous behaviour will have been an aggravating factor and her being drunk possibly one.

With the caveat that I have not heard anywhere near all the evidence, I am not surprised by this sentence nor do I think it was incorrect.

 

[ASharpe]

Based on the judge's summation I wonder if she actually did commit the offence she pleaded guilty to. Can there be "intent to endanger a person" if she "reacted spontaneously without appreciating the ramifications of what it is you were doing"?

 

[Chris M]

Based on the judge's summation I wonder if she actually did commit the offence she pleaded guilty to. Can there be "intent to endanger a person" if she "reacted spontaneously without appreciating the ramifications of what it is you were doing"?

If you plead guilty it doesn't matter if you are actually guilty or not.

 

[ASharpe]

If you plead guilty it doesn't matter if you are actually guilty or not.

Yes I think it does:

- She pleaded guilty. That usually pre-disposes a judge to be more lenient.

It's not much of a problem in the British legal system compared other countries but people do admit to things or accept cautions to avoid more severe punishment. I do wonder if it was a normally law abiding citizen who reacted spontaneously to being intentionally shoved by a stranger that a successful prossecution would follow.

For the record I do not condone being (possibly violently) drunk on railway platform or frightening other people; but I do think that might be all she has done illegally.

 

[Smethwickian]

No, Yorkie, you are not wrong (post #10) and I for one agree that many violent offenders get far too many breaks before eventually, if ever, getting locked up.

 

[farleigh]

Should have got a sentence of at least a year, preferably five or more - not suspended

 

[ComUtoR]

If he was on duty and in uniform. I very much doubt he would have pushed her.

 

[ASharpe]

Should have got a sentence of at least a year, preferably five or more - not suspended

Is that the woman who responded to being pushed, or the (off duty and probably out of uniform police) man who pushed her?

If he had done a dynamic risk assessment, got her attention from the other side, and then pushed her towards the tracks would the situation be any different?

 

[Tetchytyke]

None of us (I presume) were in Court to hear all the evidence.

Just saying.

And the original website quoted from- Court News UK- is notorious for pushing a very right-wing agenda.

 

[ASharpe]

If he was on duty and in uniform. I very much doubt he would have pushed her.

I think actually that he might have done, police are trained to do this to assert authority and deter further disorder. But out of uniform and with him as the (perceived to the woman) aggressor it might not have the same effect.

 

[furnessvale]

It's not a predisposition - it's a requirement. In most cases, pleading guilty at the first opportunity to do so means your sentence is reduced by a third. As both the incident and the plea were in November 2017 it seems very likely that she did indeed plead guilty at the first opportunity to do so.

"Pleading guilty at the first opportunity" is one of the biggest jokes in the legal system.

To a judge, this means the first time the defendant appears at crown court. However, he has had many other opportunities to admit his guilt, starting with the first of possibly several police interviews. However, they choose to remain silent, or deny the offence, demand a trial by jury (where this is possible) and at the last moment before the trial begins, plead guilty and get credit for it.

Meanwhile, many hours of police, court and witnesses time have been spent preparing full files, organising witnesses etc. By all means, give then SOME credit for avoiding a full trial but let's not kid ourselves that they weren't testing the system to make sure the prosecution had all the witnesses lined up ready to go and had not bottled out, and all other aspects of the case were watertight.

 

[furnessvale]

I think actually that he might have done, police are trained to do this to assert authority and deter further disorder. But out of uniform and with him as the (perceived to the woman) aggressor it might not have the same effect.

Training must have changed since I was in the police because that constitutes an assault.

 

[farleigh]

Is that the woman who responded to being pushed, or the (off duty and probably out of uniform police) man who pushed her?

If he had done a dynamic risk assessment, got her attention from the other side, and then pushed her towards the tracks would the situation be any different?

She pushed a man onto railway tracks and has multiple convictions for violence. If he had pushed her on the tracks, there would be little difference in my opinion (apart from the 39 previous convictions of course).

In my opinion, if the law was not so soft on violent offenders, then they might not reach the point of 40 convictions.

 

[Busaholic]

The two facts of the defendant being transgender and the person being pushed onto the track being an off-duty police officer shouldn't normally play any part in the sentencing, so one has to assume it would have been the same for a male/female or off-duty dustman, for instance. I recognise that if it had been a constable in uniform then other things come into play, but then the charges may have been slightly different too.
It has to be mentioned that, for political reasons, there is immense pressure from the Ministry of Injustice on magistrates/judges not to jail people unless absolutely necessary for immediate public safety (which, in turn, begs all sorts of questions).

 

[ASharpe]

Training must have changed since I was in the police because that constitutes an assault.

Judge's comment: "he used a defensive push aimed at your chest in order to maintain a safe gap"

 

[furnessvale]

Judge's comment: "he used a defensive push aimed at your chest in order to maintain a safe gap"

Which is different from "asserting authority".

 

[ASharpe]

Which is different from "asserting authority".

You can step back or to the side to maintain a safe gap, especially if you push first.

 

[farleigh]

I think actually that he might have done, police are trained to do this to assert authority and deter further disorder. But out of uniform and with him as the (perceived to the woman) aggressor it might not have the same effect.

I am not sure that police are trained to do this? Is that correct?

 

[Steve Harris]

"

Meanwhile, many hours of police, court and witnesses time have been spent preparing full files, organising witnesses etc. By all means, give then SOME credit for avoiding a full trial but let's not kid ourselves that they weren't testing the system to make sure the prosecution had all the witnesses lined up ready to go and had not bottled out, and all other aspects of the case were watertight.

Hmmmmmm. I doubt that very much.

As you maybe aware, there was a rape case recently that was 3 days into trial (defendant pleading not guilty). Which collapsed due to the police not checking text/e-mail records diligently. As the so called victim actually pleaded with the defendant to come round and have sex with her !!!

What is wrong with the Legal system is that people who should be incarcerated and go on behavioural / anger management courses don't. And others who shouldn't be imprisoned, are, because it looks good in league tables / performance stats.

Edit: After re-reading the article, she was walking away when she was pushed by the Off duty police officer.

Although in this case i dont think she was doing that much wrong other than having an argument in public which drew attention to her (and things might kick off) and reacting to aggression with aggression without thinking of the consequences.


It seems to me, that she has a history of violence, which probably means she really should be on a anger management course.

Which would help her and everybody who comes into contact with her.

Of course, after the course, if she can't keep her temper in check, a prison sentence for a good period of time would be appropriate.

 

[Chris M]

If you plead guilty it doesn't matter if you are actually guilty or not.

Yes I think it does:

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
I mean it doesn't matter from a sentencing point of view - if you plead guilty then the legal system treats you as guilty whether you actually are or not. Obviously from a moral point of view then it really does matter for the reasons you state (and others).

"Pleading guilty at the first opportunity" is one of the biggest jokes in the legal system.
To a judge, this means the first time the defendant appears at crown court. However, he has had many other opportunities to admit his guilt, starting with the first of possibly several police interviews. However, they choose to remain silent, or deny the offence, demand a trial by jury (where this is possible) and at the last moment before the trial begins, plead guilty and get credit for it.

Meanwhile, many hours of police, court and witnesses time have been spent preparing full files, organising witnesses etc. By all means, give then SOME credit for avoiding a full trial but let's not kid ourselves that they weren't testing the system to make sure the prosecution had all the witnesses lined up ready to go and had not bottled out, and all other aspects of the case were watertight.

Almost completely wrong I'm afraid. The first opportunity is the first time you appear in front of a magistrates and get asked to enter a plea (with one exception, see below). The timing of this happening is completely out of the alleged criminal's control (the people deciding when it happens are a combination of the police, CPS and courts service). In most cases it happens well within 48 hours of arrest, and where it doesn't it's almost always because the police need more time to collect evidence before they believe that the person alleged to have committed the crime is guilty (e.g. police bail). During this time, occasionally lasting years, your civil liberties can be restricted regardless of whether they eventually charge you or not, let alone whether you are actually guilty.

There are only three circumstances in which a defendant gets seen in a crown court:
1. When they have plead not guilty to an offence at a magistrates court and the magistrates have referred the matter to the crown court for trial. If you plead guilty when arriving at crown court in this circumstance then you did not plead guilty at the first opportunity and you get some but not all of the credit for doing so. If you change your plea part way through a crown court trial you get even less credit (roughly proportional to how far though - e.g. more credit for pleading guilty after day 1 than after day 4).
2. When they have plead guilty to an offence at a magistrates court and the magistrates have referred the matter to the crown court for sentencing. This is where you get the full credit for pleading guilty (even for an either way offence, you do not get to choose the venue of sentencing if you plead guilty at a magistrates court). There is no big trial with witnesses, etc. as you describe, only a sentencing hearing.
3. When they have appeared at a magistrates court and the magistrates have referred the matter to the crown court without the defendant being asked to enter a plea. Only in this circumstance is the crown court your first opportunity to plead guilty, and if you do so then you will get the full credit.
However, it is important to remember that you have an absolute right to a fair trial and that includes the right to plead not guilty, regardless of whether you are or are not guilty.
You can plead guilty to a lesser crime than you have been charged with (e.g. you can plead not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter). If the prosecution accepts your guilty plea to the lesser charge then, AIUI, you get the same credit as you would have if you'd been charged with that crime in the first place. What happens in terms of any credit if the prosecution doesn't accept your lesser plea but the jury does I don't know.