Lancashire Telegraph‘Good lad’ spared jail for attack in Barnoldswick club (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

‘Good lad’ spared jail for attack in Barnoldswick club

Lancashire Telegraph: ‘Good lad’ from Burnley spared jail for attack in club ‘Good lad’ from Burnley spared jail for attack in club

A DRUNKEN attacker who left his victim with a smashed cheek in Boxing Day violence, walked free from court – and the reason was partly down to a policeman who turned up to arrest him.

Burnley Crown Court heard Shane Chew, 26, had attacked Karl Antal in the toilets at the Conservative Club in Barnoldswick and then hit him repeatedly in the face after he fell.

One of the officers who went to detain Chew was PC Matthew Lunney, who had known the defendant for six years, since he was a local beat officer.

The officer, who was knocked down and injured as the defendant tried to get away, told in a statement how Chew was a ‘good lad’ when sober, but when he was drunk he could be violent.

The officer said he had tried to get him help in the past.

Mr Antal suffered a fractured cheekbone, bruises to his eyes and an eyebrow laceration and had to have stitches.

Chew, who has a record for violence, had been given a suspended jail term for three charges of battery three -and-half years ago, but had kept out of trouble since.

The defendant, of Cam Lane, Thornton-in-Craven, had admitted inflicting grievous bodily harm, damage and resisting police.

He received nine months in jail, suspended for 18 months, with 18 months supervision.

Chew was also banned from on-licence premises for 18 months and must pay £1,200 compensation.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:08pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Rich Riley says...

What a joke! And how did the victim feel about the police speaking up on behalf of the offender?
What a joke! And how did the victim feel about the police speaking up on behalf of the offender? Rich Riley
  • Score: 45

6:20pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Bluelizzy says...

Attacked a guy, hit him when he was down, resisted arrest, had been let off previously 3 times for the same thing and comes out of it with the tag 'good lad'.

What a joke our legal system is. What a message this sends out.
Attacked a guy, hit him when he was down, resisted arrest, had been let off previously 3 times for the same thing and comes out of it with the tag 'good lad'. What a joke our legal system is. What a message this sends out. Bluelizzy
  • Score: 46

6:56pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Steven Seagull says...

The LT making another pathetic attempt by stealth to stir up some cop bashing.

The reason he walked free is absolutely nothing to do with what the Police said about him. The way this is written suggests that the cops have done him a favour and got him off.

The courts are a separate entity.

Pathetic reporting once again LT.
The LT making another pathetic attempt by stealth to stir up some cop bashing. The reason he walked free is absolutely nothing to do with what the Police said about him. The way this is written suggests that the cops have done him a favour and got him off. The courts are a separate entity. Pathetic reporting once again LT. Steven Seagull
  • Score: -26

6:57pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Darren1951 says...

Police officers, judges? I've ***t 'em!
Police officers, judges? I've ***t 'em! Darren1951
  • Score: 10

7:06pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ikap22 says...

So come tomorrow the good lad gets **** again and beats some one to death, will he walk away free due to him being a good lad when his not ****. The idiot shouldn't be drinking if he can't handle his drink! Ape s@it!!!
So come tomorrow the good lad gets **** again and beats some one to death, will he walk away free due to him being a good lad when his not ****. The idiot shouldn't be drinking if he can't handle his drink! Ape s@it!!! ikap22
  • Score: 23

7:15pm Tue 25 Mar 14

POW WOW says...

So the case was compromised from the start only because the local plod knew the defendant !!!!!!! World's going bonkers !!!!!!!!!
So the case was compromised from the start only because the local plod knew the defendant !!!!!!! World's going bonkers !!!!!!!!! POW WOW
  • Score: 17

7:24pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Rich Riley says...

Steven Seagull wrote:
The LT making another pathetic attempt by stealth to stir up some cop bashing.

The reason he walked free is absolutely nothing to do with what the Police said about him. The way this is written suggests that the cops have done him a favour and got him off.

The courts are a separate entity.

Pathetic reporting once again LT.
Do you agree with the actions of the police officer? Is it right that the victim of this assault, who has every right to expect the police to bring to justice this piece of filth, should listen to the officer speak up on the behalf of the offender? The officer did say he was a 'good lad' despite the facts of this violent incident being proven and having knowledge of the offenders previous history. Whether it spared him jail or not, the officer was wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: The LT making another pathetic attempt by stealth to stir up some cop bashing. The reason he walked free is absolutely nothing to do with what the Police said about him. The way this is written suggests that the cops have done him a favour and got him off. The courts are a separate entity. Pathetic reporting once again LT.[/p][/quote]Do you agree with the actions of the police officer? Is it right that the victim of this assault, who has every right to expect the police to bring to justice this piece of filth, should listen to the officer speak up on the behalf of the offender? The officer did say he was a 'good lad' despite the facts of this violent incident being proven and having knowledge of the offenders previous history. Whether it spared him jail or not, the officer was wrong. Rich Riley
  • Score: 22

8:36pm Tue 25 Mar 14

happycyclist says...

Gross misconduct by the police officer. He should have joined the probation service or social services or the Guardian readers' club, not the police force.
Gross misconduct by the police officer. He should have joined the probation service or social services or the Guardian readers' club, not the police force. happycyclist
  • Score: 11

8:54pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Steven Seagull says...

Rich Riley wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
The LT making another pathetic attempt by stealth to stir up some cop bashing.

The reason he walked free is absolutely nothing to do with what the Police said about him. The way this is written suggests that the cops have done him a favour and got him off.

The courts are a separate entity.

Pathetic reporting once again LT.
Do you agree with the actions of the police officer? Is it right that the victim of this assault, who has every right to expect the police to bring to justice this piece of filth, should listen to the officer speak up on the behalf of the offender? The officer did say he was a 'good lad' despite the facts of this violent incident being proven and having knowledge of the offenders previous history. Whether it spared him jail or not, the officer was wrong.
No I don't, it was wrong that he said it and even more stupid that the CPS allowed it to be disclosed and entered into the evidence chain. But the notion that the Judge gave him such an unduly lenient sentence because a police officer said he was a "good lad" is nonsense.

Judge's don't need encouragement to pass ridiculous sentences, they are abundantly capable of doing that on their own. My issue is the LT yet again seizing upon an opportunity to encourage cop bashing. They have a real problem w
with the Police and this sly stealth attempt is just pathetic.



I often support and stick.up for the Police because I know they have a difficult job to do and cannot please everybody but on this occasion I think they have not done themselves any good. Well the officer concerned that is.
[quote][p][bold]Rich Riley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: The LT making another pathetic attempt by stealth to stir up some cop bashing. The reason he walked free is absolutely nothing to do with what the Police said about him. The way this is written suggests that the cops have done him a favour and got him off. The courts are a separate entity. Pathetic reporting once again LT.[/p][/quote]Do you agree with the actions of the police officer? Is it right that the victim of this assault, who has every right to expect the police to bring to justice this piece of filth, should listen to the officer speak up on the behalf of the offender? The officer did say he was a 'good lad' despite the facts of this violent incident being proven and having knowledge of the offenders previous history. Whether it spared him jail or not, the officer was wrong.[/p][/quote]No I don't, it was wrong that he said it and even more stupid that the CPS allowed it to be disclosed and entered into the evidence chain. But the notion that the Judge gave him such an unduly lenient sentence because a police officer said he was a "good lad" is nonsense. Judge's don't need encouragement to pass ridiculous sentences, they are abundantly capable of doing that on their own. My issue is the LT yet again seizing upon an opportunity to encourage cop bashing. They have a real problem w with the Police and this sly stealth attempt is just pathetic. I often support and stick.up for the Police because I know they have a difficult job to do and cannot please everybody but on this occasion I think they have not done themselves any good. Well the officer concerned that is. Steven Seagull
  • Score: 7

10:15pm Tue 25 Mar 14

juanbbien says...

The judge wasn't Lunt was it or that could explain everything
The judge wasn't Lunt was it or that could explain everything juanbbien
  • Score: 9

12:42am Wed 26 Mar 14

Truth will out says...

Neither a good lad or from Burnley - wrong on both counts.
Neither a good lad or from Burnley - wrong on both counts. Truth will out
  • Score: 10

3:32pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123 says...

juanbbien wrote:
The judge wasn't Lunt was it or that could explain everything
no cant have been Lenient Lunt he got 9 months suspended,instead of a wrist slapping
[quote][p][bold]juanbbien[/bold] wrote: The judge wasn't Lunt was it or that could explain everything[/p][/quote]no cant have been Lenient Lunt he got 9 months suspended,instead of a wrist slapping ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123
  • Score: 2

4:36pm Wed 26 Mar 14

barryinthailand says...

The "Copper" was only saying what he thought, nothing wrong with that, if he had known a local MP in a different trial, he might have said he was a nasty piece of work who always got away with things?
Guess the penalty on that statement in court, exactly the same, no difference.
The "Copper" was only saying what he thought, nothing wrong with that, if he had known a local MP in a different trial, he might have said he was a nasty piece of work who always got away with things? Guess the penalty on that statement in court, exactly the same, no difference. barryinthailand
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree