Indian Lt-Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar Attackers Jailed

[Porsche911]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25316370

Quoted from BBC...

"A Sikh gang convicted of slashing a retired Indian general's throat in revenge for a 1984 military offensive has been jailed.

Lieutenant-General Kuldeep Singh Brar, 78, was attacked as he walked with his wife in central London in 2012.

Mandeep Singh Sandhu, 34, of Birmingham, Dilbag Singh, 37, and Harjit Kaur, 39, both from London, were convicted of wounding with intent.

Barjinder Singh Sangha, 33, of Wolverhampton, had admitted the charge.

The retired general and his wife, Meena, were heading for a night out in the West End when the attack happened on 30 September 2012, Southwark Crown Court heard.

500 dead

Lt Gen Brar was involved in Operation Blue Star against Sikh separatists in Amritsar, north-west India, in June 1984.

Lt Gen Brar's protection ranking was raised to the highest possible following the attack in London

It left at least 500 people dead and made him the target of anger and revenge attacks.

A group of protesters demonstrated outside the court calling for the retired military officer to be indicted as a war criminal for his part in the operation at the Golden Temple.

BBC London's Alex Bushill said the group, about a 100-strong at its height, said they do not condone the actions of the attackers but they were protesting about Lt Gen Brar.

The demonstrators were from London, Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton.

Sentencing the four attackers Judge Jeffrey Pegden QC said: "This was a group attack by young men on a 78-year-old man."

The victim "resolutely fought back" and prevented an even more serious harm.

'Drew a knife'

Commenting on the role of Kaur the judge said she enabled the "ambush" to take place "swiftly and effectively".

Demonstrators called for Lt Gen Brar to be indicted as a war criminal

Kaur followed the victim and his wife on the day of the attack, keeping her accomplices informed of the target's movements, who were in waiting.

When the couple reached Old Quebec Street, Sangha "drew a knife as the other men held the victim", the jury were told.

He was left with a 12-inch cut running across his neck and jaw and another three-inch cut to the jaw.

His protection ranking was raised to the highest possible following the attack.

Following the sentencing, Commander Richard Walton, head of the Met's Counter Terrorism Command, said: "This was a pre-planned and organised attempt to assassinate General Brar for his military involvement in the siege of the Golden Temple in India in 1984."

Mandeep Singh Sandhu and Dilbag Singh were sentenced to 14 years, Harjit Kaur was jailed for 11 years while Barjinder Singh Sangha received a sentence of 10 years and six months".

[proactive]

What a joke! You get that sentence for murder not for wounding! Obviously Cameron has told the judge that they need to please India in order to get the next defence contract.

[Jivan76]

When you accept Seva, expect harsh sentences.....

Half'a job......full penalty......

Harsh but true, they are Bra's victims, not vice versa!!!!

[acsap]

When you accept Seva, expect harsh sentences.....

Half'a job......full penalty......

Harsh but true, they are Bra's victims, not vice versa!!!!

Those Gursikhs are not complaining about the harsh sentences, we are. I am not sure what is your problem with that.

[singh598]

The Indian Congress wanted to send a stark message get caught for violence terrorism and expect lengthy jail sentences.

The English Legal System is clearly corrupt how you can get 14 years for wounding W/I.

The Singh's were foolish for not pleading guilty at the earliest stage thus getting a 1/3 discount.

The Singh's should appeal sentence.

This was obviously a high profile diplomatic case. If the Singh's got standard sentences then economic relations between the the British and India would have been affected. As usual the British interests above the Sikhs. They were considered future threats and so incarcerated for longer.

If anyone thought the British were sympathetic of Sikh injustices then i guess this is a good wake up call, and the BBC with its claim of 500 deaths

well what more can i say.

DON'T SUPPORT BRITAIN, SUPPORT KHALISTAN

[Jivan76]

No problem Veerji, just my two pence.

My opinion will always be my own, I don't expect anyone or everyone to either accept it or agree.

Bhul chik maaf

[singh598]

Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent

Date Produced: 13 March 2013

Title: Offences against the Person

Offence: Wounding of inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent

Legislation: Offences against the Person Act 1861 section 18

Mode of Trial: Indictable only

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Life imprisonment

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines

The Sentencing Council's 'Assault Definitive Guideline' applies to all offenders aged 18 and over sentenced on or after 13 June 2011, regardless of date of offence. Section 18 offences are covered at pages 4 - 6 therein.

STEP 1 - Determine the offence category.

• Category 1: Greater harm (serious injury must normally be present) and higher culpability
• Category 2: Greater harm (serious injury must normally be present) and lower culpability; or lesser harm and higher culpability
• Category 3: Lesser harm and lower culpability

The court should determine culpability and harm caused, or intended, by reference only to the factors listed in full below at STEP 1 HARM AND CULPABILITY FACTORS (as demonstrated by the presence of one or more). These factors comprise the principal factual elements of the offence and should determine the category.

STEP 2 - Use starting point to reach a sentence within the category range. It applies irrespective of plea or previous convictions. A case of particular gravity could merit upward adjustment from the starting point before further adjustment for aggravating or mitigating features, listed in full below at STEP 2 SERIOUSNESS FACTORS

• Category 1

  Starting Point (Applicable to all offenders):

  12 years' custody

  Category Range (Applicable to all offenders): 9 - 16 years' custody

• Category 2

  Starting Point (Applicable to all offenders):

  6 years' custody

  Category Range (Applicable to all offenders): 5 - 9 years' custody

• Category 3

  Starting Point (Applicable to all offenders):

  4 years' custody

  Category Range (Applicable to all offenders): 3 - 5 years' custody

STEP 3 - Any other factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance to the prosecution

STEP 4 - Reduction for guilty pleas

STEP 5 - Dangerousness - serious specified violent offence, and Schedule 15A CJA 2003 applies

STEP 6 - Totality principle

STEP 7 - Compensation and ancillary orders

STEP 8 - Reasons

STEP 9 - Consider remand time

STEP 1 HARM AND CULPABILITY FACTORS HARM Factors indicating greater harm

• Injury (which includes disease transmission and/or psychological harm) which is serious in the context of the offence (must normally be present)
• Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances
• Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim

Factors indicating lesser harm

• Injury which is less serious in the context of the offence

CULPABILITY Factors indicating higher culpability

Statutory aggravating factors:

• Offence racially or religiously aggravated
• Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility to the victim based on his or her sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation)
• Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility to the victim based on the victim's disability (or presumed disability)

Other aggravating factors:

• A significant degree of premeditation
• Use of weapon or weapon equivalent (for example, shod foot, headbutting, use of acid, use of animal)
• Intention to commit more serious harm than actually resulted from the offence
• Deliberately causes more harm than is necessary for commission of offence
• Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim
• Leading role in group or gang
• Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility based on the victim's age, sex, gender identity (or presumed gender identity)

Factors indicating lower culpability

• Subordinate role in group or gang
• A greater degree of provocation than normally expected
• Lack of premeditation
• Mental disorder or learning disability, where linked to commission of the offence
• Excessive self defence

STEP 2 SERIOUSNESS FACTORS

The following lists are non-exhaustive

Factors increasing seriousness Statutory aggravating factors:

• Previous convictions, having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
• Offence committed whilst on bail

Other aggravating factors include:

• Location of the offence
• Timing of the offence
• Ongoing effect upon the victim
• Offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public
• Presence of others including relatives, especially children or partner of the victim
• Gratuitous degradation of victim
• In domestic violence cases, victim forced to leave their home
• Failure to comply with current court orders
• Offence committed whilst on licence
• An attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence
• Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the offender's behaviour
• Commission of offence whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• Abuse of power and/or position of trust
• Exploiting contact arrangements with a child to commit an offence
• Previous violence or threats to the same victim
• Established evidence of community impact
• Any steps taken to prevent the victim reporting an incident, or obtaining assistance and/or from assisting or supporting the prosecution
• Offences taken into consideration (TICs)

Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation

• No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
• Single blow
• Remorse
• Good character and/or exemplary conduct
• Determination, and/or demonstration of steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour
• Serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
• Isolated incident
• Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender
• Lapse of time since the offence where this is not the fault of the offender
• Mental disorder or learning disability, where not linked to the commission of the offence
• Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives

[sat]

Still cant understand how 4 people in the prime of life with weapons could not kill a 78 year old and only wounded him ? :stupidme:

[username1]

What a joke! You get that sentence for murder not for wounding! Obviously Cameron has told the judge that they need to please India in order to get the next defence contract.

It's attempted murder you can get done for that or gbh

[username1]

Still cant understand how 4 people in the prime of life with weapons could not kill a 78 year old and only wounded him ? :stupidme:

The general of one of the worlds biggest armies. General Brar did before 84 take on Pakistan (pakistan has in the recent years played a role in training the taliban and al-queeda- you can see how difficult the west has had it with afghans) a couple of times he was involved in the independence of Bangladesh with the humiliating defeat pakistan faced, many pakistanis till this day lie within pakistan that they won the war, some pakistani's are surprised when they come abroad to find out they actually lost that war- which is internationally known. It seems the 4 people were untrained going against this trained guy and their attack seem pre-meditated but poorly planned out. Skills can come first abit like how the arab conquests destroyed brought powerful nations to their knees to bow to the flag of muhammads rule when terror ruled free.