A common assault, or more properly, assault by beating. Little more than a slap in the face and, as assaults go, hardly worth the name when compared to the assault of a vulnerable adult, or even worse, a child, in a domestic violence setting.
The thug was handed down the maximum sentence allowed in law so why are people so "astonished" as to the "leniency" of the sentence?
Oh, I see, it was an MP who, not wanting to allow common sense to get in the way of a good sound-bite, chose to display her crass stupidity
Should there be more severe sentences for those who assault a football player as compared to those who assault in a domestic violence setting or those who assault the aged, infirm or otherwise vulnerable members of society just for fun?
That certainly seems to be the consensus of opinion amongst the armchair judges and magistrates. There are an awful lot of people who either can't, or won't, differentiate between justice and extremism.
It seems to me that those who should know better are quite willing to pander to the vociferous as well.
Maybe my moderate views are wrong. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale of sentencing based upon ones social position rather than the circumstances of the offence.
Just to put meat on the bones, a section 39 Common Assault, is a summary only offence (ie cannot be sent to Crown Court), carrying a maximum sentence of six months, and as with all sentences is subject to a reduction of between 10% ( guilty plea, day of trial) to 33% (guilty plea, first opportunity).