Teenager who smashed window during Middlesbrough riots freed on appeal
|
Version 0 of 1. Judges suspend Dylan Willis’s jail term on account of his ADHD and low IQ but uphold sentences of three other men A teenager jailed for smashing a restaurant window during rioting in Middlesbrough is to be freed after appeal judges ruled that a court had not considered his complex developmental and mental health background. Dylan Willis, 18, who pleaded guilty to violent disorder after repeatedly smashing the window with a brick, had his 14-month sentence suspended by court of appeal judges on Thursday. The panel of three senior judges suspended his sentence for two years, saying they had made the “difficult decision” because of his specific background. Mr Justice Bennathan said there was clear evidence Willis had ADHD and a low IQ, which had affected his decision making. Three other men who appealed against their sentences had their original terms upheld, with the judges ruling they were appropriate. In the case of one, Aminadab Temesgen, the court said his 14-month sentence should stand but should be served in a young offender institution, rather than in prison. The court ruled there had been an error in how Temesgen, who was 19 at the time, had been originally sentenced for throwing a can and water bottle at police and at a far-right group that had racially abused him during disorder in Plymouth. A second man, Paul Williams, 45, who was jailed for two years and two months in August after throwing metal fencing and a can of beer at police in Sunderland, failed in his attempt to appeal against his sentence. The court also upheld the 10-month sentence handed to Ozzie Cush, 20, from Reading, who had kicked a police officer during a central London protest. The judges said they had to consider not only the offenders’ individual crimes, but also the impact of the riots in creating fear among the public. They said that severe sentences were designed to act as a deterrent as well as a punishment. Dame Sue Carr, the lady chief justice, said: “There is an overwhelming obligation on sentencing courts to do what they can to ensure the protection of the public, whether in their homes or in their businesses or in the street and to protect the homes and businesses and the streets in which they live and work.” “Those who deliberately participate in disturbances of this magnitude, causing injury and damage and fear to even the most stout-hearted of citizens, and who individually commit further crimes during the course of the riots are committing aggravated crimes. “They must be punished accordingly, and the sentences should be designed to deter others from similar criminal activity.” |