Thread by @BarristerSecret

Quite a few questions this evening about the sentence of Paul Mitchell, the man who pleaded guilty to assaulting Aston Villa footballer Jack Grealish. So a quick thread:

Paul Mitchell was charged with battery, contrary to s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

He was also charged with an offence of encroaching onto a football pitch (presumably s4 Football Offences Act 1991).

He pleaded guilty to both offences at his first appearance today before Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, the offences having been committed yesterday. A good live account of today’s court proceedings can be found here: birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-…

Many people have remarked on how quickly this case was processed - barely 24 hours between offence and sentence. But it’s not unusual where a defendant is arrested, charged with a summary offence (one that can only be tried at the magistrates’ court) and refused police bail.

The police have the power to charge an offence of battery without needing the Crown Prosecution Service to authorise the charge, so the process is quicker. A defendant charged and kept in police custody will be produced at the magistrates’ court the next day.

If a defendant pleads guilty, the court will usually require a Pre-Sentence Report to be prepared by the Probation Service, to make recommendations as to how best to deal with the offender. It’s now common for this to be done the same day.

As for the sentence itself - Mr Mitchell received 14 weeks’ imprisonment. The magistrates are required to follow the Sentencing Guideline for Assault. Here it is:

The maximum sentence for battery is 6 months’ imprisonment. (If injury had been caused, it would likely be charged as causing actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years).

Maximum sentence for invading the pitch is a fine.

A defendant who pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity - i.e. at his first appearance - is entitled to one third off his sentence.

This means that the maximum sentence the magistrates could have passed was 17 weeks.

14 weeks is therefore almost as high as they could go.

Applying the Guidelines, the magistrates put this case in Category 1.

As ever, we don’t have the full sentencing remarks, but presumably, given that there was no injury and it was a single blow, the court found Mr Grealish to be “particularly vulnerable” - Greater Harm.

Higher culpability must also have been found. It’s not entirely clear which features were said to be present - maybe deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim, given that Mr Grealish was doing his job while assaulted from behind.

Possibly a stretch though.

I’m loath to draw any firm conclusions without knowing the magistrates’ reasoning, but on its face, it looks as if there would have had to be a fair bit of creative interpretation to get Mr Mitchell into Category 1 and towards the top end.

The magistrates made clear the need for deterrent sentencing for this kind of offence, and it may be that they held that the circumstances were such that it was in the interests of justice to disapply the Guideline. This, I’d guess, would be how they would justify the sentence.

The potential for widespread public disorder, as others have pointed out, may well have been a factor which the court treated as seriously aggravating. Context is everything. Those saying “he wouldn’t have got this for a punch in the street” miss the point. This wasn’t the street

As ever, this exercise involves a fair bit of guesswork, because our justice system still struggles to do basic things such as providing a copy of the sentencing remarks in cases of enormous public interest.

But that’s my rough take. Stiff sentence, but probably justifiable.

FWIW, the sentence was roughly what I predicted before the hearing:

https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1105093736235761670?s=21