Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
To give an illustration, there are sentencing guidelines in England and Wales that give judges parameters in which they need to operate. The "starting point" for Grevious Bodily Harm causing permanent brain damage to the victim is 3 years' custody. To this aggravating and mitigating circumstances get applied (and headbutting is considered one of them since it's a weapon). Being drunk is not a mitigating circumstance - it is an aggravating one - but is often brought to the judges' attention to explain what happened, and also to make it clear there was no premeditation. Guilty pleas and previous good behaviour will reduce the sentence.
I actually think this is pathetic sentence since it's about the same level as an accountant defrauding their employer or a serious tax fraud.
Without wishing to get too OT, as I'm sure you know there is a difference between GBH with intent and simple GBH. The statement above may leave people thinking that those who attack someone with the intent to do grievous bodily harm may get 3 years.
Click here for the Sentencing Council guideline on assault
For a GBH with intent, where serious injury is caused, the starting point is 6 years if the Judge decides that the factors point towards lower culpability (with a range of 5-9) and 12 if it's higher (with a range of 9 to 16).
I accept an unlawful wounding (s.20) ie without intent has a starting point of 3 years but that reflects the lack of intent and the lower maximum sentence.
Back OT, the maximum sentence in the ROI seems far too low. The statutory maximums in our Aviation Security Act seem more sensible.