11:58 GMT, Tuesday, 15 December 2009

BBC News

Man to challenge attack sentence

 

A Buckinghamshire businessman jailed for injuring a burglar who had attacked him and his family plans to appeal against his sentence, his lawyer said.

 

Munir Hussain, 53, returned to his High Wycombe home to find three intruders who tied him and his family up.

He managed to escape and chased one of the offenders, hitting him with a cricket bat, Reading Crown Court heard.

Hussain's solicitor said he planned to appeal against his 30-month sentence for grievous bodily harm with intent.

 

'Revenge attack'

 

Michael Wolkind, defending Hussain, told the court his client was the "real victim" in the case.

The court heard Hussain and his brother Tokeer, who both live in Desborough Road, chased intruder Walid Salem, leaving him with a permanent brain injury after he was hit with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.

Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident on 3 September 2008, but his injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment.

Salem was given a two-year supervision order at a court hearing in September this year.

The Hussain brothers were found guilty after a trial earlier this year.

The prosecution alleged two other men also took part in the so-called "revenge attack" with them.

 

'Public support'

 

Munir Hussain was given a 30-month sentence while his brother was jailed for 39 months.

Judge John Reddihough said Munir Hussain's family had been subjected to a "serious and wicked offence" but said he had carried out a "dreadful, violent attack" on Salem.

 

The judge said: "If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."

 

Mr Wolkind said the case had similarities to that of farmer Tony Martin, who shot a teenage intruder, noting there was public support in both cases.

 

Hilary Neville, prosecuting, said: "What started as reasonable self defence by Munir Hussain then turned into excessive force by virtue of a sustained attack by Munir, Tokeer and at least two others."

 

I don't know about you but this is Tony Martin all over again, for goodness sake the burglar had over 50 previous offences. To use the Nu Labour phrase "Soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime"? What do you think?

I don't know about you but this is Tony Martin all over again, for goodness sake the burglar had over 50 previous offences. To use the Nu Labour phrase "Soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime"? What do you think?

 

 

Oh come on mate, whatever the guy did, it was still Four against One... Not what any reasonable person would call "Self Defence".... If he'd given the guy a good smacking over whilst he was actually on the property then fair dos, he takes what he gets, but this is a bit "mob mentality" when others who had nothing to do with it get involved....

 

If you want to make an argument for more stiff sentences for Burglary, then, okay, show me the petition, I'll sign it, but ganging up on someone in this manner and committing an aggravated assault, come on....

 

As for Tony Martin, well, you know how I feel about him, he shouldn't be getting congratulated for procuring an illegal firearm and shooting someone anymore than some chav on a South London estate should..... I'm sure a drug dealer could make just as convincing a plea for "self defence" as Martin could.... Fighting relatively minor crime with more serious crime.....? Really..... :rolleyes:

Oh come on mate, whatever the guy did, it was still Four against One... Not what any reasonable person would call "Self Defence".... If he'd given the guy a good smacking over whilst he was actually on the property then fair dos, he takes what he gets, but this is a bit "mob mentality" when others who had nothing to do with it get involved....

 

If you want to make an argument for more stiff sentences for Burglary, then, okay, show me the petition, I'll sign it, but ganging up on someone in this manner and committing an aggravated assault, come on....

 

As for Tony Martin, well, you know how I feel about him, he shouldn't be getting congratulated for procuring an illegal firearm and shooting someone anymore than some chav on a South London estate should..... I'm sure a drug dealer could make just as convincing a plea for "self defence" as Martin could.... Fighting relatively minor crime with more serious crime.....? Really..... :rolleyes:

 

Well I think that sums you up doesn't it.

 

You support a serial criminal with over 50 convictions who was one of three men who ambushed a successful law abiding businessmen and his wife and his two young children holding them hostage in their own home with knives tie them up and threatening to rape the wife and harm the children after they came home from the Mosque. Then just because the robbery went wrong, and the understandably angry businessman used his own cricket bat to wack the $h!t out of the criminal within five minutes of escaping you support the f%kkin' scum criminal.

 

How very anti-establishment of you supporting Nu Labour's policies. I'm seriously shocked and pissed off you can come to that conclusion that has outraged callers on Radio 2 and Radio 5Live today.

 

Businessman jailed for attacking intruder - who goes free

A millionaire businessman has been jailed for attacking a man who held his family hostage in their own home - while the criminal went free.

By John Bingham

Published: 5:35PM GMT 14 Dec 2009

Telegraph.co.uk

 

Munir Hussain, who was threatened at knifepoint and tied up by a gang of masked men in his living room last year, was told he must go to prison for 30 months to preserve “civilised society”.

 

But Walid Salem, a criminal with more than 50 convictions, was handed a two-year supervision order for his role in the break-in at an earlier hearing.

 

He was one of three men who ambushed Mr Hussain, his wife and children as they returned to their home in High Wycombe, Bucks, on Sept 3 last year after attending Ramadan prayers at their local mosque, Reading Crown Court heard.

Their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room before being forced to lie down in the living room.

 

But when Hussain’s teenage son managed to escape and raise the alarm, he seized his chance and turned on his captors.

While two of them got away, Salem was cornered in a neighbour’s front garden. With the help of his brother, Tokeer, 35, who lived nearby, Hussain set upon him with a metal pole and a cricket bat, the court heard.

He was struck so hard that the bat broke and he suffered a fractured skull. He was later deemed not fit to plead to charges of false imprisonment and given a supervision order.

 

The brothers were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent by a jury in September.

Sentencing, Judge John Reddihough told them it was his “public duty” to jailing Munir Hussain for 30 months and his brother for 39 months.

"It may be that some members of the public, or media commentators, will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him ... and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished,” he said.

"However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."

 

He said it was necessary to “make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands, or carry out revenge attacks upon a person who has offended them”.

 

Michael Wolkind, defending, likened the case to that of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who was jailed for murder in 2000 after shooting an intruder dead, prompting a national debate about the limits of self defence.

Martin’s conviction was later reduced to manslaughter and his sentence reduced.

 

Mr Wolkind told the court: "I don't seek a medal, I seek justice for him."

 

The court heard that Chief Inspector Colin Seaton of Thames Valley Police, the senior officer in the case, had told Hussain, a former chairman of Wycombe Race Equality Council, that he was sad to see him convicted.

 

Speaking outside court Mr Wolkind added: “The criminal justice system has failed twice.

"The court was unable to sentence Walid Salem with sufficient harshness, or Munir and Tokeer Hussain with sufficient compassion.

"It's difficult to believe that this outcome reflects the thinking of the public, or the interests of justice."

 

Hussain runs a company called Soundsorba, based in High Wycombe, which makes acoustic panels.

The first point to make is that, as far as I am aware, he is not appealing against the conviction. That suggests that the defence accept that this was not "reasonable force". The victim (and, yes, I know he's a burglar but he's still the victim here) suffered serious brain damage. The force used was so great that it broke the cricket bat used. If the attack had happened while the burglar was still in Mr. Hussain's home, it might well have been different but that's not what happened. They gave chase having armed themselves with a weapon. If they had caught him and them held him while waiting for the police, the burglar would now be in jail and Mr. Hussain would be a free man.

 

It seems fairly clear that the judge gave an immediate custodial sentence rather than a suspended one because he wanted to send a clear message that taking the law into your own hands in this way is not acceptable. I suspect that if the appeal goes ahead, the sentence will be reduced to a level which allows Mr. Hussain to be released immediately.

 

As for "outraged callers on Radio 5", I heard them and many of them had no idea what they were talking about and refused to listen to anyone who disagreed with them.

 

The jury had the option to return a not guilty verdict. Having heard all the facts of the case - something none of us have done - they found him guilty.

Well I think that sums you up doesn't it.

 

You support a serial criminal with over 50 convictions who was one of three men who ambushed a successful law abiding businessmen and his wife and his two young children holding them hostage in their own home with knives tie them up and threatening to rape the wife and harm the children after they came home from the Mosque. Then just because the robbery went wrong, and the understandably angry businessman used his own cricket bat to wack the $h!t out of the criminal within five minutes of escaping you support the f%kkin' scum criminal.

 

How very anti-establishment of you supporting Nu Labour's policies. I'm seriously shocked and pissed off you can come to that conclusion that has outraged callers on Radio 2 and Radio 5Live today.

 

 

Well said. He should have killed the scum-bag and ecaped any consequences.

The first point to make is that, as far as I am aware, he is not appealing against the conviction. That suggests that the defence accept that this was not "reasonable force". The victim (and, yes, I know he's a burglar but he's still the victim here) suffered serious brain damage. The force used was so great that it broke the cricket bat used. If the attack had happened while the burglar was still in Mr. Hussain's home, it might well have been different but that's not what happened. They gave chase having armed themselves with a weapon. If they had caught him and them held him while waiting for the police, the burglar would now be in jail and Mr. Hussain would be a free man.

 

It seems fairly clear that the judge gave an immediate custodial sentence rather than a suspended one because he wanted to send a clear message that taking the law into your own hands in this way is not acceptable. I suspect that if the appeal goes ahead, the sentence will be reduced to a level which allows Mr. Hussain to be released immediately.

 

As for "outraged callers on Radio 5", I heard them and many of them had no idea what they were talking about and refused to listen to anyone who disagreed with them.

 

The jury had the option to return a not guilty verdict. Having heard all the facts of the case - something none of us have done - they found him guilty.

 

So you don't have a problem with masked men breaking into your own home with knives and hammers, tying up you & your family making verbal threats towards you and your family whilst burglaring your house.

 

Sorry, but in my eyes the law should always be if someone does something that breaks the law against you, you should be entitled to take action against them. Obviously you disagree with this prognosis.

So you don't have a problem with masked men breaking into your own home with knives and hammers, tying up you & your family making verbal threats towards you and your family whilst burglaring your house.

 

Sorry, but in my eyes the law should always be if someone does something that breaks the law against you, you should be entitled to take action against them. Obviously you disagree with this prognosis.

That's just silly. For a start, I have been burgled, albeit when I was away from home. Just read what I said. If Hussain had attacked the burglars in his own home, he may well not have been charged, let alone convicted. But he didn't. He grabbed a weapon and launched a violent assault in an act of revenge. He could have detained the burglar and got his brother to call the police. He didn't and now he's suffering the consequences. Of course, you nay want to have mob rule but I don't. The twelve members of the jury (assuming it was a unanimous verdict) seem to agree with me.

maybe he did use excessive force, but tbh it was quite understandable.

 

im fully behind richards views on this, scott ... your position disgusts me, but then again the victim was a busnessman who had a few bob... fair game for you innit... <_<

That's just silly. For a start, I have been burgled, albeit when I was away from home. Just read what I said. If Hussain had attacked the burglars in his own home, he may well not have been charged, let alone convicted. But he didn't. He grabbed a weapon and launched a violent assault in an act of revenge. He could have detained the burglar and got his brother to call the police. He didn't and now he's suffering the consequences.

 

Exactly.. Two wrongs dont make a right at the end of the day.... Shame on you Richard and Rob for thinking it does... Well, I guess we should all just go out on the streets and beat up anyone who's done us a bad turn with a cricket bat then..... -_-

 

If he'd've given the bloke a good kicking whilst in his home (which is what I said in my original post if certain numpties who cant read properly on this thread had cared to notice :rolleyes: ), then fair dos... After the fact and in the street, and then gathering a lynch-mob around you, it then becomes street assault and should be treated like any other assault.... It doesn't matter to me if the person in working or middle class, everone has to be treated the same in the eyes of the law, unfortunately this doesn't happen nearly enough.... Same with Tony Martin, procuring an illegal firearm is a much worse crime than burglary, but some obviously dont seem to think so... Yeah, well, you lot who think what Tony Martin did was okay clearly haven't seen the consequences of street shootings where illegal weapons have been procured by drug dealers and gangbangers, and dont bullsh!t me that it's somehow "different" when it's a white man living in the sticks rather than a black kid on a South London estate.... <_<

 

And Chris, you can just sod off, you would say black was white so long as it disagreed with me..... Your contributions to this and any other topic on Perspectives are about as welcome as a dose of herpes, you've proven all too often that you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this forum....

 

 

The jury had the option to return a not guilty verdict. Having heard all the facts of the case - something none of us have done - they found him guilty.

 

Bottom line, that's it... We can huff and puff all we want, but this what it all boils down to, hearing ALL THE FACTS without prejudice, and not a totally jaundiced interpretation via the gutter press which in all likelihood leaves out key facts....

 

At the end of the day, the ONLY opinion that counts is the jury's..... I somehow doubt they would have convicted the bloke without pretty damned compelling evidence... Juries dont tend to find ordinary, law abiding citizens guilty of this sort of thing unless there's something which prompts them to...

 

Like I said, give me a petition to sign which gives burglary a minimum tariff of, say, 15 years or whatever to act as a deterrant.... But that would be something to pressurise the lawmakers on....

 

the victim was a busnessman who had a few bob... fair game for you innit... <_<

 

Depends on HOW he made his money... If he made it by chicanery and deceit like Fred Goodwin or these City Scum then, yeah, fukk him... If he made it as an honest businessman doing fair deals, then I wouldn't wish harm on him at all, I only have a problem with dishonest types Rob....

 

I somehow doubt that this guy walked away after causing a financial disaster with a multi-million quid pension pot paid for by the taxpayer though....

Depends on HOW he made his money... If he made it by chicanery and deceit like Fred Goodwin or these City Scum then, yeah, fukk him... If he made it as an honest businessman doing fair deals, then I wouldn't wish harm on him at all, I only have a problem with dishonest types Rob....

 

I somehow doubt that this guy walked away after causing a financial disaster with a multi-million quid pension pot paid for by the taxpayer though....

 

...and this is where your argument falls down.

 

so its ok to beat up fred goodwin but not a proven burglar?.. you say two wrongs dont make a right but here you are suggesting it does! <_<

 

nah m8, you either support violence or you dont.

Exactly.. Two wrongs dont make a right at the end of the day.... Shame on you Richard and Rob for thinking it does... Well, I guess we should all just go out on the streets and beat up anyone who's done us a bad turn with a cricket bat then..... -_-

 

If he'd've given the bloke a good kicking whilst in his home (which is what I said in my original post if certain numpties who cant read properly on this thread had cared to notice :rolleyes: ), then fair dos... After the fact and in the street, and then gathering a lynch-mob around you, it then becomes street assault and should be treated like any other assault.... It doesn't matter to me if the person in working or middle class, everone has to be treated the same in the eyes of the law, unfortunately this doesn't happen nearly enough.... Same with Tony Martin, procuring an illegal firearm is a much worse crime than burglary, but some obviously dont seem to think so... Yeah, well, you lot who think what Tony Martin did was okay clearly haven't seen the consequences of street shootings where illegal weapons have been procured by drug dealers and gangbangers, and dont bullsh!t me that it's somehow "different" when it's a white man living in the sticks rather than a black kid on a South London estate.... <_<

 

And Chris, you can just sod off, you would say black was white so long as it disagreed with me..... Your contributions to this and any other topic on Perspectives are about as welcome as a dose of herpes, you've proven all too often that you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this forum....

 

i didnt say two wrongs make a right, i said that its understandable that the thief got a good kicking.. i personally wouldnt have done it, but under those circumstances i dont blame at all this guy for doing so.

 

as for tony martin... would the fact that if he had a licence for his shotgun have made any difference to the scum he dispatched?... :lol:

i didnt say two wrongs make a right, i said that its understandable that the thief got a good kicking.. i personally wouldnt have done it, but under those circumstances i dont blame at all this guy for doing so.

 

as for tony martin... would the fact that if he had a licence for his shotgun have made any difference to the scum he dispatched?... :lol:

Martin eventually had his conviction quashed because he had a personality disorder. That being the case, I would hope he wouldn't have stood a chance of getting a licence.

Martin eventually had his conviction quashed because he had a personality disorder. That being the case, I would hope he wouldn't have stood a chance of getting a licence.

 

Yeah, I second that.... I mean, didn't Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane killer also have a Personality Disorder....?

 

 

so its ok to beat up fred goodwin but not a proven burglar?.. you say two wrongs dont make a right but here you are suggesting it does! <_<

 

If someone did it, I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but there are much better ways to make a prick like Goodwin suffer... Such as taking his pension and his nice big house away, and making the fukker work for minimum wage until he drops dead...... OR has paid back the country everything he owes..... Same goes for the rest of them who cost the Taxpayer BILLIONS..... It's just a little bit more than a stereo or a DVD player, know what I mean.....? <_<

Good on the guy for doing this, one less scumbag capable of wrecking lives by burgling

 

The criminal justice system in this country is stacked heavily in favour of the criminal as opposed to the victim so it is understandable why people are so frustrated with the police and the courts that they are taking the law into their own hands, is it necessarily right thing to do ? maybe/maybe not but it is understandable

 

If the police had simply been called and Salem arrested he would have got some community service and a rap on the knuckles like most burglars seem to do these days as opposed to the several years in jail he deserved soB my sympathies are with the victim not with Salem

 

I am well prepared for any burglar in my house and if I caught anyone robbing my house would I use what I have on them ? without hesitation, I fully understand why this guy did what he did

 

 

Well said B.A. I'm ready too. Any burglar who comes here won't leave walking that's for sure.

Well said B.A. I'm ready too. Any burglar who comes here won't leave walking that's for sure.

 

somehow i cant imagine an overweight, middle aged, bone idle slob getting the better of a chavvy theif..

somehow i cant imagine an overweight, middle aged, bone idle slob getting the better of a chavvy theif..

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Couldn't have put it better myself......