wasn’t in any way planned or premeditated, and he wasn’t looking for a fight that day.”
However, Judge Taylor found this explanation wanting, remarking, “You can’t go around calling someone a paedophile. There’s no justification. This is hierarchy – ‘I’m a violent offender but not a sex offender’.
There shouldn’t be any offending at all. There are no heroes.”
Sentencing and Community Punishment
Both defendants were sentenced to suspended jail terms and community-based sentences, reflecting the severity of their actions despite the absence of immediate custodial punishment.
Judge Taylor stated, “Whatever that man did – it may have been something, it may have been nothing – he ended up with a broken face because you two piled into him.” Bumstead was given a 22-month jail term suspended for two years and ordered to complete 300 hours of unpaid work. Betts received a 20-month jail term suspended for the same period, along with 200 hours of unpaid work.
Both men were also required to undertake up to 20 rehabilitation activity requirements and face 90 days of alcohol abstinence monitoring. The judge emphasized that these sentences were designed to punish them severely, adding, “Do not come back and ask for variations. This is designed to punish you.”
Background and Context
The incident has raised questions about the handling of alleged inappropriate behavior towards children in the area. While no formal charges were brought against the victim, concerns were expressed that he had made explicit sexual remarks to young schoolgirls and a boy.
Despite the severity of their actions, Judge Taylor noted the background circumstances, stating, “But there is a background and it is not contested by the Crown. There was a concern about the complainant’s remarks to children in the area.” However, he made no findings against the victim, adding that his injuries were a result of the defendants’ actions.
The case has highlighted the complex nature of community-based sentencing and the challenges faced by courts when dealing with incidents involving perceived offenses against children. The sentences imposed reflect both the seriousness of the physical harm inflicted on the victim and the judge’s desire to send a strong message about unacceptable behavior, regardless of any prior concerns.
