A Tale of Two Reports: the Scandal of the Muslim Girl Gang

The Daily Mail has picked up on a story that was in my local newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, almost two weeks ago. Since its appearance online yesterday, it has sparked outrage amongst many, and now an online petition.

My suspicions were raised purely by the fact it was the Daily Mail, but a little digging has gone a long way.

The original headline was "Gang of women who assaulted me should have been sent to jail". A young, white, British woman, and her white, British boyfriend were set upon by four, drunk women of Somalian origin. It was a nasty, and a vicious attack, with words exchanged, and allegations of racism from both sides. The female victim sustained some nasty, but relatively superficial injuries, however the Judge accepted the basis that her partner had subjected the attackers to some kind of "unreasonable force".

Each of the four attackers received a six month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months after pleading guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).

A look at the Sentencing Guidelines suggests that the six month sentence is at the top end of the sentence range for a s.47 offence, this being an attack that was not pre-meditated with no lasting physical injury.

Of course the Judge, as far as I understand, has the discretion to suspend a custodial sentence, which he has done on this occasion. There are no real reasons given in the report for this, such as antecedent history, personal circumstances such as family and employment. The only mention of what was said in mitigation was:

"the attack was down to alcohol"

with the further explanation that excessive drinking is not something that is culturally usual with the attackers' community.

This report in itself makes the sentence given seen lenient, however when contrasted with the report in the Daily Mail, where the headline screams "Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims", a totally different version of events is already painted. 

"Freed" - were they ever in custody in the first place?

"Kill the white slag" - the local report says that the victim was called a "white bitch". No mention of death threats.

Was the reason these women were not imprisoned really down to their inability to take their drink?

Yet again, I have that horrible, sinking feeling I get whenever I read a report from the Daily Mail involving an immigrant group. The fact that it's two weeks since sentencing was passed does nothing to allay my fears. Here is another opportunity for this particular publication to whip up an hysterical frenzy to create a "them and us" situation between the so-called indigenous population and any Muslim group in existence in this country.

"You wouldn't see a white person get away with it", I read, as people focus on the racist element of this offence, more than the actual violence itself, or so it seems. As pointed out in the local report, both parties have made allegations of racism. It is something that is very difficult to prove without scores of witnesses, or recorded evidence. Even then, video footage is not enough. I cannot find a link, but an Aston Villa fan was cleared of racist chanting at Leicester City's old stadium, Filbert Street. Whilst CCTV footage showed him mouthing along to the chants, his defence was he had lost his voice, and therefore he didn't actually say anything racist. It was enough.

Both reports leave many unanswered questions; I wouldn't like to conclusively say if these sentences were or were not lenient based upon the information reported. I'm certainly not condoning the actions of these vile creatures. But my experience of seeing the Judges and Counsel in Leicester Crown Court, and of observing sentencing procedures, I am swayed towards this being the correct decision by this Judge. I would prefer to see a transcript before making up my mind.

* * * * *

I know that this case helps the argument for TV cameras in court. But I still don't think televising cases helps, as production companies are capable of editing those bits and pieces that fit their own agenda. The courts are open to the public, and live coverage offers nothing more. In fact, it may offer less, as it would no doubt have to be restricted for various reasons. It would not encourage more people to take an interest in local justice. Further, there aren't the resources to deal with every matter, especially instances like this one. I don't believe that there's the resources or the interest to video ever single thing that happens in court.