Thank you for your comment concerning my article, which was provoked by the comments made by the sentencing judge who was clearly aggrieved at the “carve up” agreed between the Crown Prosecution Service and Defence. As my article explained, the effect of a “lesser” assault charge being preferred was that that the maximum sentence that could be imposed was reduced from five years’ to six months’ imprisonment. As the defendant had pleaded guilty she was entitled to a discount, in this instant case, a full one third discount, because it appears she pleaded to the offence (namely, common assault “by beating”) upon the very first occasion it had been put to her. Thus the maximum prison sentence that could have been imposed fell from three years and four months’ to just four months’ by virtue of the “deal” struck by the lawyers. The judge then declared that, “This was at the top range of such common assault offences. The assault was extremely unpleasant, bordering on vicious.” As a lawyer who has practised criminal law, I would have expected the judge to continue “…and taking into consideration everything that has been said on your behalf, I consider that this offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified and that the appropriate sentence is one of four months’ imprisonment…” (in other words, it would have been a reasonable assumption that had the lawyers not tied his hands behind his back, the judge would have imposed a longer custodial sentence.) As you are well aware, the judge imposed a financial penalty, which I consider undermined a significant part of the reason for his anger, that is to say, that amongst other things, his sentencing powers had been severely restricted by the Crown Prosecution Service and Defence. Hence in my opinion, the judge’s comment about the Crown Prosecution Service decision being “deplorable, unprincipled and indefensible” was hyperbole and a show of surprise and resigned disappointment at the Crown’s decision might have been more proportionate, hence the title of my post “A lot of fuss about nothing”. The article was not about the assault upon your sister being nothing – it was obviously extremely unpleasant. You will note from my article that on the facts I took the view the appropriate charge was one of the more serious assault occasioning actual bodily harm, not common assault. I can understand your frustration that the prosecution did not proceed to plan. I am not surprised by your impression that the Crown appeared to have “lost the plot” and wanted the case “over and done with”. I am sure that the judge suspected that as well, hence his irritation. However, I should make this point. Had the Crown proceeded to trial on the actual bodily harm charge, Barbara Allmey might have been found “not guilty”. At least the Crown ensured that she was convicted of an assault against your sister and given a sentence requiring that she pay compensation of £700.00 as well as a fine.