Serial burglar wins sentence appeal (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Serial burglar wins sentence appeal
6:40am Thursday 9th February 2012 in Southampton
Serial burglar wins sentence appeal
A SOUTHAMPTON criminal who has been burgling since he was only 15 has had his latest prison sentence cut at the Court of Appeal.
Shaun Blything, 22, was jailed for three years and four months at the city’s crown court in November after admitting burglary and breaching a suspended sentence. Judges in London said the sentence was too tough on Blything, of Hanover Buildings, Houndwell Park, and slashed it to a total of two years and ten months.
Mr Justice Cranston, sitting with Lord Justice Hughes and Mr Justice Beatson, said the sentence was “too high” because the offence had been Blything’s first domestic burglary. His previous burgling had involved non-domestic premises, he said, although Blything did have numerous other offences to his name.
On July 1 last year, occupants of a house in Shirley returned to their home to find a back door had been forced and burglars had been into their home. In total, £15,000 worth of electrical equipment and jewellery had been taken and Blything was tracked down after leaving his DNA at the scene.
Comments(6)
hulla baloo
says...
7:34am Thu 9 Feb 12
And why is it that on appeal sentences are usually reduced? I think it is about time that many are increases under appeal. This has to be a 2 way street. Maybe there would be less costly and time consuming appeals if they knew it could be increased.
For pity sake
says...
10:13am Thu 9 Feb 12
"Maybe there would be less costly and time consuming appeals if they knew it could be increased."
People say that defenders of the English language are wrong to say there is a difference between 'less' and 'fewer'.
This is a classic example where the wrong use of 'less' changes the meaning - the writer presumably means that there would be FEWER costly appeals, not that they would be LESS costly.
Over the Edge
says...
10:34am Thu 9 Feb 12
For pity sake wrote:Thank you for the English lesson, maybe you could teach Harry Redknapp.
hulla baloo wrote:
"Maybe there would be less costly and time consuming appeals if they knew it could be increased."
People say that defenders of the English language are wrong to say there is a difference between 'less' and 'fewer'.
This is a classic example where the wrong use of 'less' changes the meaning - the writer presumably means that there would be FEWER costly appeals, not that they would be LESS costly.
This sucks, non-dwelling burglary is still burglary, these Judges reduce sentences because they are scared in case it infringes the scrots human rights
For pity sake
says...
11:09am Thu 9 Feb 12
Over the Edge wrote:Depending on whether you are talking about one scrot or scrots in general, it should be scrot's human rights or scrots' human rights - apart from the fact that it should be spelt SCROAT ;-)
For pity sake wrote:Thank you for the English lesson, maybe you could teach Harry Redknapp.
hulla baloo wrote:
"Maybe there would be less costly and time consuming appeals if they knew it could be increased."
People say that defenders of the English language are wrong to say there is a difference between 'less' and 'fewer'.
This is a classic example where the wrong use of 'less' changes the meaning - the writer presumably means that there would be FEWER costly appeals, not that they would be LESS costly.
This sucks, non-dwelling burglary is still burglary, these Judges reduce sentences because they are scared in case it infringes the scrots human rights
Over the Edge
says...
1:01pm Thu 9 Feb 12
For pity sake wrote:Get a life.
Over the Edge wrote:Depending on whether you are talking about one scrot or scrots in general, it should be scrot's human rights or scrots' human rights - apart from the fact that it should be spelt SCROAT ;-)
For pity sake wrote:Thank you for the English lesson, maybe you could teach Harry Redknapp.
hulla baloo wrote:
"Maybe there would be less costly and time consuming appeals if they knew it could be increased."
People say that defenders of the English language are wrong to say there is a difference between 'less' and 'fewer'.
This is a classic example where the wrong use of 'less' changes the meaning - the writer presumably means that there would be FEWER costly appeals, not that they would be LESS costly.
This sucks, non-dwelling burglary is still burglary, these Judges reduce sentences because they are scared in case it infringes the scrots human rights
Stillness says...
7:03am Thu 9 Feb 12