How violent must you be before sent to jail?

The account by Amy Orton (HT, March 3) of the court proceedings following an unprovoked attack in which an “elderly man” was felled and his scalp split open by a savage blow from behind by a pickaxe handle wielded by an “agitated” 30 year old man, who went on to threaten the proprietor and other shoppers with an axe in a Hinckley hardware store, makes very disturbing reading.

Surprisingly, the culprit was only charged with “affray” after the principal victim reportedly refused to press charges - although we are not told whether this was from a desire to “forgive and forget” the episode, or some other reason.

The judge, Timothy Spencer, in sentencing the criminal to a suspended term with only modest costs (and no mention of compensation to the victim) acknowledged the role of alcohol abuse in his shameful behaviour but appears to have accepted the defence lawyer’s suggestion that he may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a consequence of his service with the South African Army in Angola and Chad.

However “horrific and unpleasant” his experiences of army life were during that time they did not discourage him from subsequently enlisting with the French Foreign Legion for five years.

Nor did they deter him from attempting to join the Army in Britain, although he was unable to do so because of residential stipulations.

Coming only a few months after the Times reported a case in which the judge opted against an immediate custodial sentence for a college lecturer whose brutal and sustained assault on his wife resulted in multiple injuries, including a broken arm, one is bound to wonder just what appalling level of physical violence it would take to merit a jail term which would protect the public by sending an unequivocal message to all potential perpetrators, whether indigenous or imported.

A.Y., Burbage.