×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules
8

Drunk businesswoman, 39, who glassed a pub drinker after he wrongly guessed she was 43 is spared jail after female judge says 'one person's banter may be insulting to others'

submitted by MasterSuppressionTechnique to news 1 weekApr 23, 2024 07:10:22 ago (+9/-1)     (www.dailymail.co.uk)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13335555/Drunk-businesswoman-glassed-pub-drinker-age-manchester.html

A drunk businesswoman who glassed a pub drinker after he wrongly guessed her age has been spared jail after a female judge said 'one person's banter may be insulting to others'.

Mother-of-one Joanne Dodd, 39, flew into a rage and attacked Carl Cooper after he suggested she was 43 in the beer garden of the Unicorn pub in Manchester city centre on September 9 last year.

Mr Cooper fled to the toilet in a bid to get away from the heated situation, but when he came out Dodd ran towards him and twice shoved her wine glass in his face.

He was left with a four inch laceration to his face, narrowly missing his eye, and an injury to his thumb.

When quizzed Dodd, who runs a firm which organises children's sleepover parties, said she was suffering from 'low self esteem' at the time and said the banter was 'disobliging' towards her.

At Manchester Crown Court, Dodd, who is from Swinton in Salford, faced up to three years in jail under sentencing guidelines after she admitted inflicting grievous bodily harm.

However, she was spared jail and handed a suspended sentence after Judge Elizabeth Nicholls said she was a 'dedicated, hardworking woman' who posed no risk to the public.

The judge told Dodd: 'It is obvious that you had been drinking heavily and there was undoubtedly some verbal exchange between you and the other group.

'You did not appreciate the comments made by Mr Cooper and one person's banter may be insulting to other people but that did not justify what you then went on to do.

'You were seen to be approaching him, throwing your drink over him and then striking him deliberately in the face with the glass that you had. Your conduct was incomprehensible.

'The only explanation that can really be put forward is that you were under the influence of drink, which does you no credit.

'It was no doubt traumatic for Mr Cooper and it would have had an impact on him. Fortunately he seems to have made a good recovery.

'I have seen the photo where the scar is barely noticeable but to him it will be a constant reminder of your conduct on that night. There was a very unpleasant injury, it is a grave injury, but fortunately there is no permanent disfigurement.'

The judge added: 'There is no mitigation about the circumstances of the offence itself but there is mitigation in relation to you.

'You are a woman with no previous convictions. You have never been in a court of law before and you have positive good character.

'It is accepted that you are a dedicated, hardworking woman, and undoubtedly a loving mother.

'It is right that you were remorseful from the beginning of the events at the police station.

'There is no doubt that this offence is so serious that it crosses the custody threshold. The issue is whether the sentence is immediate or can be suspended.

'There can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public and that this offence was entirely out of character and I suspect that having been so shaken by your own conduct the court will never see you again.

'Perhaps more importantly you are a mother of a young child. Although, no doubt, the child would be taken care of, an immediate term of imprisonment would have a devastating effect on your child. It would be disproportionate to the sentence that needs to be imposed.'

The incident occurred on September 9 last year when Dodd was out with her sister at The Unicorn pub in Manchester city centre.

Prosecutor Emma Clark said: 'Carl Cooper and his friend Stuart Coleman were in the beer garden and the defendant was intoxicated.

'Mr Cooper and his friends were having a light-hearted conversation with the defendant's sister before the conversation turned to age.

'Mr Cooper guessed the ages of the two women - but the defendant took offence at Mr Cooper's guess. The conversation then became heated from there and she told Mr Cooper that she would glass him.

'He went to the toilet to get away from the situation and the defendant and her sister proceeded to the main bar area.

'But she caught sight of Mr Cooper as he left the toilet and immediately ran towards him, striking him twice in the face with a glass causing a laceration to the face and narrowly missing his eye.

'The defendant left the Unicorn pub shortly after the attack and was subsequently arrested at a Tesco store a short time later. The injury to Mr Coooper's face was treated with stitches.'

Dodd was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 12 months and was ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work. She was also ordered to pay £800 in compensation to her victim.

Her barrister Mark Friend said: 'So far as the offence itself was concerned, it may be a case where the less said the better.

'But the events since that time remain very firmly in the mind of Miss Dodd. She deeply regrets this and apologises profusely to the complainant for her actions on that day.

'It may be said that some of what had been termed banter between them was rather disobliging but the defendant does not seek to excuse or explain her actions. There was also an unfortunate coalition of factors that were impacting on the defendant on that occasion.

'There were issues in relation to the loss of her father and issues of self esteem and self worth. The loss of her good character in the way she has is a burden she carries very severely.

'In reality this court can be most assured that Miss Dodd will not darken the doors of the court or any other court in the future.'


15 comments block


[ - ] CHIRO 5 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 10:21:54 ago (+5/-0)

So, I get the anger over this. You can guarantee that if the attacker and the victim roles had been reversed, the man would see jail time. I also get that this makes people think she should also be incarcerated.

But if you read the judge's decision, I have to be honest, it is sensible. So, the answer for me is that the sentence was the right one, and the injustice is that a man couldn't expect to receive the same just sentence.

Apparently, he has a barely visible scar. She has to work for a month without pay, and she also had to pay him the equivalent in US of about $1,000. I'm thinking about having to work the next month without income (I'm not sure how this is actually carried out in UK), and that fucking sucks. It is definitely going to make her feel how stupid her actions were. Like I said, I don't know how this works in the UK, but 180 hrs is 4.5 work weeks in the US. If that means no pay, that sucks, especially given that she is single. Then again, since she runs her own little nonsense business, she might get to decide what work means for her, which lightens this burden by a lot.

The judge looked at the damage to the man, and the fact that the woman had no criminal history at all, and she came down with a punishment that seems sensible. Again, the trouble is that a male probably can't expect the same sensibility in his own case (because muh violent males).

[ - ] The_Reunto 1 point 1 weekApr 23, 2024 11:51:35 ago (+1/-0)

Agreed. If it were a single father, the hope is that the same verdict would be rendered.

[ - ] HeavyBrain 1 point 1 weekApr 23, 2024 14:18:27 ago (+1/-0)

If the UK is anything like Germany, you don't miss out on work you do your community service in your free time, you can ask your local church/soup kitchen, animal shelter if you can do it there and show up on the weekends working 5 hour shits till you are done.

(Anything else would be retarded since you are fired if you don't show up for so long and may lose your houseing if you dont pay rent. May aswell go to prison)

Wonder how its done in the US you call your Boss and are like "yeah I won't show up for a month" ?

[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 14:32:29 ago (+0/-0)

I'm a moron. When I read "work without pay", I assumed that meant work for your employer without pay. I wasn't associating "work" with "community service." Now that I'm clear that it just means community service, it will work the same way in the US. They have a database of people who work with the state in these programs. Someone from the court will usually make the arrangements, and they'll work around your regular work schedule. So, you might be working at a Catholic charity on the weekends or something like that.

I'm feeling real stupid for misunderstanding what I read there, haha.

[ - ] HeavyBrain 1 point 1 weekApr 23, 2024 15:11:57 ago (+1/-0)

When I read "work without pay", I assumed that meant work for your employer without pay.

TFW self employed.

[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 15:44:09 ago (+0/-0)

Haha. I actually acknowledged she was self-employed, and then I must have, what, assumed she could just say she wasn't paying herself for a month? If I'm normally running at 50% retard, I dialed up it 40% today.

[ - ] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 16:23:22 ago (+0/-0)

But thats just it, as a self employed you may aswell chill and shoot the shit and not pay yourself.

Meh but then I guess you have to make sure your company is still runing.....

[ - ] HeavyBrain 4 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 10:04:07 ago (+4/-0)

Well then its ok to brick the judge, after all I am offended by her words she spoke when reading the verdict.

When quizzed Dodd, who runs a firm which organises children's sleepover parties

Excuse me what??!! wtf of a "job" is that.

[ - ] The_Reunto 1 point 1 weekApr 23, 2024 12:05:16 ago (+1/-0)

My hunch is that her career (her means of income) depended on her not having a criminal record (police check for dealing with minors). If the judge gave her a sentence that removes her means of income it could be contrary to Christian values.

If someone owes you a debt, do not take away their means of income in order to settle that debt (cf. Deut 24:6). All crimes are things that create a debt to that society. The debts are often repaid in the form of money and/or time.

[ - ] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 14:07:58 ago (+0/-0)

Eye for an Eye, him cutting her wouldn't pervent her from working now would it?

Also fuck the money she had to pay him if it covers his costs (legal + missing out on job + missing out on free time) I'd be surprised.

[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 16:35:26 ago (+0/-0)

Eye for an eye, payment in equivalency, in a manner that does not promote further damage. The monetary compensation is designed to weigh against the scratch. If they had cut each other you likely wouldn't see anything awarded.

If it covers his costs

It was well within his rights to seek compensation in the courts, but scripture warns against wasting your energy trying to run someone through the courts (cf. 1 Cor 6:1-8).

[ - ] HeavyBrain 1 point 1 weekApr 23, 2024 17:28:31 ago (+1/-0)

If they had cut each other you likely wouldn't see anything awarded

Not everyone is ready to sell out for a lump sum.

Instead of 800 bucks I rather cut her/ let a surgeon cut her as she cut me.

There are cases where equivalency is very hard to reach. (you have 2 kids boy and girl, I have only a boy, you kill my child, now what do I do, kill just your son? or do I kill all your kids because you took 100% of mine?)

But shit like here is easy to settle.

[ - ] Fascinus 3 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 12:26:06 ago (+3/-0)

[ - ] ilikeskittles 3 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 08:45:10 ago (+3/-0)

Pussy Pass

[ - ] goatfugee12 2 points 1 weekApr 23, 2024 17:04:06 ago (+2/-0)

so he guessed 43 and she is 39.... I mean that's not even an insult, that's pretty close.