Friday, April 03, 2009

This country needs help

How can a guy on bail and with previous convictions for armed robbery kill a totally innocent man and only get four years?

Tony Virasami is a man from London who killed Kevin Tripp, a totally innocent man who had the misfortune of queuing in Sainsburys at the wrong time. Virasami's girlfriend got into a row with someone over queue-jumping and she thought it'd be a good idea to call her beau in order to seek mafioso-style justice. As Virasami marched into the supermarket, he mistook Mr Tripp for the target, dealing him an almighty blow that killed him. As the victim lay unconscious on the floor, Virasami realised he'd hit the wrong man and was heard saying "We've got to find the right guy".

The whole episode was caught on CCTV. On sentencing Virasami, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC pointed out that the sentence "must reflect not merely the revulsion and concern by Mr Tripp's nearest and dearest who are destined, one might say condemned, to suffer life long after the case, but to reflect the shock and concern by the public at large that an entirely innocent man should die in these circumstances".

The judge added that Virasami "set out to commit an offence of violence in a public place", and that "this was not merely criminal behaviour, but irresponsible, reckless and dangerous behaviour".

Bear in mind the judge also stated that Virasami had numerous convictions, including for assault and robbery, for which he'd already done five years. Class A drugs had also played a constant part in his life and, at the time of the killing, he was on bail, tagged and under curfew.

So there it is. A man who set out to intentionally cause harm; the killing of an innocent man; clear-as-crystal CCTV evidence; lots of witnesses; a criminal record the length of the M25; the fact that the attacker didn't help the victim when he was down; the fact that the attacker was tagged; the judge's alleged intention to "reflect the shock and concern by the public at large". You'd have thought this would be the perfect chance to hand an exemplary sentence.

Instead, four years was all Virasami was given. 4 years. So thank god the judge wanted "to reflect the shock and concern by the public at large", otherwise Virasami would be probably already standing behind you in a queue in Tesco.


Anonymous said...

OK, it does seem rather insufficient, but why do you think the UK "needs help"?

claude said...

"Rather insufficient"?

Well, take a seat first, make yourself a cup of tea and then we'll begin...

Chris Baldwin said...

Hi that was me. The point is, what's the big picture? What does this sentence actually say about Britain?

claude said...


we read about the Government and the opposition, egged on by the tabloids, both going on about safety and security, ID schemes, tough action, law brought upon law, Green papers and White papers, Rizla and Swan and blah blah blah ...but what use has all that got when you read of sentences like this one?

I would just love to have a chat with the judge who thought a 4 year sentence to Virasami is fair. HOW ON EARTH? Especially knowing that, including his few months on remand and good behaviour, he could be out in less than 2.

But the trouble is, this is not an isolated case. Last October a scumbag was given 27 months for pushing a 60-year-old man off a bus in Hartlepool. Is 27 months worth the life of an innocent man, in the opinion of some people? The murderer will be out before next Christmas.

I could go on with other cases, Sophie Lancaster, Richard Whelan, Jody Dobrowski, Michael Causer and all the victims further insulted by hideous sentences but what's the point?

The sentencing system in Britain is deeply fucked up and offers little guarantee of protecting vulnerable people, let alone upholding deterrence.

I'm not talking about illiberal measures, ID cards, the death penalty, or any of that waffle.

I'm on about people who are found guilty, totally guilty in fact, and still are handed ridiculous sentences for no apparent reason.

Where's the deterrent? Where's the proportionality between crime and punishment? How does it make people feel safer?

Btw, "This country needs help" was the title of a song. I thought it sounded appropriate.

Chris Baldwin said...

You may be right, but in mitigation, the government has sought to increase sentences for violent crimes. We see cases like this and the ones you mentioned and sometimes they highlight flaws in the law and the sentencing guidelines, but at the moment I'm not sure what the wider picture is for how manslaughter is dealt with. I've tried to find out the average sentence - a few years ago it seems to have been a little over five years, but obviously that covers various types of crime so it's hard to know what conclusions to draw.

claude said...

in fact I'm not having a go at the government. There's no Daily Mail view here. I'm sure under a Tory administration there'd be little to no difference.
Which is why this country needs help!