Yobs who left a man with a “broken face” after it was claimed he had made inappropriate comments to children have been spared jail.
Jack Bumstead and Martin Betts repeatedly kicked and punched their victim in a Lydd street on learning he had supposedly remarked he “liked little boys” and made a lewd gesture, a court was told.
Jack Bumstead, from Tenterden, initiated the attack in Lydd
Bumstead, said to work for a landscaping firm, initiated the violence before Betts, an unemployed scaffolder, joined in the attack which resulted in injuries that included eye socket, cheekbone and nose fractures.
But a judge told the pair that whatever the man may or may not have done, they were “not heroes” and had “piled into him” in a “disgraceful and cowardly” way.
At a hearing last month, Canterbury Crown Court heard the assault in South Street on May 16 had been triggered by what the prosecutor on that occasion, Ellen Brennan, referred to as “some background between the parties”.
This, she said, included evidence of “a general dislike and ill-feeling” and “a suggestion that the complainant had been causing trouble with young people in the area”.
Bumstead, 29, was the first to arrive on the scene riding a scooter, followed by 30-year-old Betts on foot, where they began to beat the man and then kick him multiple times as he lay on the ground.
Martin Betts, from Lydd, “wasn’t looking for a fight that day”, according to his lawyer
When he got back to his feet, he was struck again, explained Ms Brennan.
The incident was caught on a CCTV camera at the nearby Dolphin Inn pub and showed several youngsters in the area at the time.
At one stage, Betts’s partner was also seen to get out of a car and “charge” up to the man, pushing him backwards.
The victim, who KentOnline has chosen not to name, was taken to hospital and, although no surgical intervention was needed, he was advised to follow a soft diet for several weeks and subsequently referred to a specialist in respect of blurred vision.
But the court was told that he had declined to give a victim personal statement.
You can’t go around calling someone a paedophile…
Bumstead, of Shrubcote, Tenterden, and Betts, of Brooks Way, Lydd, were initially charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent, as well as the alternative offence of inflicting GBH.
But their not guilty pleas to both charges were accepted by the prosecution after they admitted assault causing actual bodily harm at a hearing in September.
It was on that occasion that Betts’s lawyer, James Burke, revealed further details of why it was said the victim had been attacked.
Explaining how “explicit sexual remarks” had been made to young schoolgirls and a boy in the area, sparking the violence, he told the court: “It [the assault] wasn’t in any way planned or premeditated, and he [Betts] wasn’t looking for a fight that day.
“It’s more a case of not exercising the control required in difficult circumstances.”
The attack in South Street, Lydd, was caught on a CCTV camera at the nearby Dolphin Inn pub and showed several youngsters in the area at the time. Picture: Google
However, this prompted Judge Simon Taylor KC to remark: “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.”
Mr Burke told the court that a boy known to Betts was among the youngsters to whom it was alleged the victim said he “liked little boys” and made “a lewd gesture” with his tongue.
He added that he “understood” the man was arrested and investigated for those alleged comments.
But instead of proceeding to sentence on that occasion, Judge Taylor adjourned the case, asking for a basis of plea from the defendants in that it might provide what is known as “derogatory assertion” mitigation.
He also said it was “only fair” the victim was given the opportunity to provide a statement about the claims, adding that while it might be true, it would be wrong just to accept without testing.
“You can’t have a free-for-all and say what you want,” he told Mr Burke. “I have to be fair to everybody. There is a man with a broken face.”
Nathan Fitzpatrick, defending Bumstead at that hearing, said it was accepted he started the altercation and continued it once the victim was on the ground and with the assistance of Betts.
He also made similar assertions about the injured party in a pre-sentence report.
But when his actions were described by the lawyer as “impulsive”, Judge Taylor said: “You can’t go around calling someone a paedophile.”
Adjourning matters, and indicating the assault was “on the cusp” of a GBH charge, he then told the defendants: “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.
Jack Bumstead, from Tenterden, was given a 22-month jail term suspended for two years
“It may be you were trying to be heroes in front of a bunch of kids. But you weren’t required to behave in the way you did on this day in question.”
The pair returned to court this week (October 29) to learn their fate – and to hear the prosecution “did not seek to contradict the suggestion” that the defendants were “told by someone” that the victim had made inappropriate comments to young people in the period leading up to the assault.
In reference to Betts having also stated that during the altercation he had been threatened when the man took off his T-shirt, squared up to him and threw a punch, prosecutor Simon Smith said the victim had “limited recollection” of events.
But he confirmed that the CCTV footage did show him removing his top towards the end of the incident and having “some sort of exchange” with Betts before being knocked to the ground for a second time.
It could not be said, however, which defendant or which blows had caused the injuries.
Explaining how the assault unfolded, Mr Smith told the court: “The first to the victim is Mr Bumstead. He then pushes him and begins to attack him, knocking him on the floor and repeatedly punches him.
“Mr Betts then runs over and joins in, raining blows on the victim on the floor. The victim then gets up and staggers around.
“The two defendants walk away but then turn and return. Mr Bumstead then walks away and a female, Kirstie Taylor, is seen to get out of a car and charges towards the victim, pushing and striking him backwards.
“At that point, it is only Mr Betts involved. He has a stand-off with the victim, who gestures to strike him.
“He [the victim] removes his T-shirt, Mr Betts goes towards him as he is backing away, swings at him, knocks him unconscious and then raises his arms once more before moving away from the scene.”
Martin Betts, from Lydd, was handed a 20-month jail term suspended for two years
The court was not told how or when the men came to be arrested or what was said in police interviews.
However, Bumstead, whose previous convictions include offences of assault and for which he was subject to a suspended sentence order (SSO) at the time, spent three weeks in custody on remand before being bailed on a tagged curfew.
Betts, who has four convictions for 10 offences but has been out of trouble since 2018, was also subject to a similar curfew during the legal proceedings.
Highlighting this meant the pair had therefore served the equivalent of a seven-month jail term as a result of their respective restrictions, Judge Taylor said another “key factor” that spared them immediate custodial sentences was the assumption the victim had made a full recovery from his injuries.
But he told them they had participated in a “prolonged and persistent” attack deserving of the “severest” community-based punishment possible.
Imposing a suspended sentence on each, Judge Taylor said: “The factual basis on which I sentence is important because on the face of the evidence this just looked like rank bullying.
“But there is a background and it is not contested by the Crown. There was a concern about the complainant’s comments to children in the area.
“Whether they were correctly reported to you is neither here nor there and I make no finding against the complainant in this case.
“But, looking at the size of the two of you and two against one, this was a disgraceful piece of conduct and a cowardly act.
“While it’s plain there were serious physical injuries, I cannot assume anything other than a full recovery without surgical intervention on the facts I have, and that is a key factor that keeps you out of prison.
Bumstead and Betts were sentenced at Canterbury Crown Court
“I cannot differentiate between you. You, Mr Bumstead, initiated the violence, and you, Mr Betts, involved yourself in a cowardly way when the complainant was all but defeated.
“It was a prolonged and persistent assault with both of you engaging in kicking and punching while he lay on the floor.”
Bumstead, who also admitted breaching his previous SSO, was given a 22-month jail term suspended for two years, with 300 hours of unpaid work and a curfew from 7pm to 4am until January 2 next year.
Betts was handed a 20-month jail term suspended for the same period, with 200 hours of unpaid work.
Both were also ordered to complete up to 20 rehabilitation activity requirements and told they would be subject to 90-days alcohol abstinence monitoring.
“That is about as severe a community-based punishment I can impose. I have to impose a severe punishment because the alternative would be immediate custody,” the judge explained.
“Do not come back and ask for variations. This is designed to punish you. If you can’t go out over Christmas and are missing family events, that is part of the punishment.”
Bumstead, said to earn £150 a day, was also fined £50 for the breach offence, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1,000 in full due to Betts having no income and not claiming benefits.
But having given him a year to pay, Judge Taylor suggested to the defendants as they stood alongside each other in the dock that they could “come to an agreement” about reimbursement.
“If you are still friends, you might want to work that out between you. But that is the consequence of Mr Betts not working,” he said.
A five-year restraining order banning contact with the victim was also imposed and, with the prosecution offering no evidence to the GBH and GBH with intent charges, formal not guilty verdicts were entered into the court record.
