Man gets community order after drunken brawl

Alexander David Lowe

Alexander David Lowe

First published in News Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Dorchester reporter

A MAN who struck another male with a glass during a drunken altercation has been sentenced to a community order.

Alexander David Lowe, pictured, aged 23, appeared at Dorchester Crown Court to be sentenced after admitting a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The charge related to an incident at the Dorothy Inn on January 7, when Lowe and his victim Luke Flood were both drinking at the pub.

Prosecutor Kerry Maylin said that the men began arguing in relation to a female and had to be warned by staff to keep the noise down.

She said they continued ‘shouting and swearing’ and continued the altercation outside.

Ms Maylin said: “There was poking and pushing between the two of them.

“The defendant was holding a pint glass at the time and used his hand to punch Mr Flood in the face, the glass smashed.”

She said that the altercation continued, with Lowe landing further punches to the victim’s face before they left the scene.

Away from the pub the two grappled again and Lowe landed a further blow before they were arrested by police.

Mr Flood was taken to hospital for treatment to his facial injuries.

In a basis of plea Lowe, of Chickerell Road, Weymouth, claimed that immediately before the blow with the glass Mr Flood had stepped towards him and he had struck out, forgetting that the glass was in his hand and had not intended to cause serious harm.

Robert Pawson, mitigating, said Lowe’s actions on that day were ‘out of character’ and were the result of ‘not insignificant provocation’ from his victim.

He said: “Mr Flood accepted in interview his goading of the defendant may have contributed to the injuries he sustained.”

Judge Roger Jarvis imposed a 12-month community order designed as an intensive alternative to custody.

Lowe will have to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and attend for 15 days at an employment, training and education programme.

He was also made subject to an electronically monitored curfew for a period of three months.

Judge Jarvis said: “It is perfectly obvious when one listens to what has been said about the background that there were understandably sensitive issues and that you were feeling humiliated by the observations, the provocations and the taunting of the victim in this case.

“None of that excuses what you did but it provides some special explanation for the circumstances in your case.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:10am Mon 14 Jul 14

westbaywonder says...

Wonder if its the same girl in the photo?
Never worth the hassle woman,thousands out there, move on and find another one .
Wonder if its the same girl in the photo? Never worth the hassle woman,thousands out there, move on and find another one . westbaywonder
  • Score: 1

11:55am Mon 14 Jul 14

elloello1980 says...

"Judge Roger Jarvis imposed a 12-month community order designed as an intensive alternative to custody"

would the same sentence be received if Judge Joke Jarvis was the victim? Tempting for some, I bet...
"Judge Roger Jarvis imposed a 12-month community order designed as an intensive alternative to custody" would the same sentence be received if Judge Joke Jarvis was the victim? Tempting for some, I bet... elloello1980
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Mon 14 Jul 14

MadMicke12 says...

GBH. Carries life if 'with intent', so surely as a minimum, this should have been five years. No wonder crims have no fear when committing serious crimes, as they seem to know they will only get a community sentence unless it is an armed robbery or murder.
GBH. Carries life if 'with intent', so surely as a minimum, this should have been five years. No wonder crims have no fear when committing serious crimes, as they seem to know they will only get a community sentence unless it is an armed robbery or murder. MadMicke12
  • Score: 4

1:29pm Mon 14 Jul 14

iansedwell says...

If the men were drunk, why were they apparently being served alcohol, or even allowed to be in the bar (2003 Licensing Act) ?
If the men were drunk, why were they apparently being served alcohol, or even allowed to be in the bar (2003 Licensing Act) ? iansedwell
  • Score: 5

12:50pm Tue 15 Jul 14

elloello1980 says...

iansedwell wrote:
If the men were drunk, why were they apparently being served alcohol, or even allowed to be in the bar (2003 Licensing Act) ?
£££
[quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: If the men were drunk, why were they apparently being served alcohol, or even allowed to be in the bar (2003 Licensing Act) ?[/p][/quote]£££ elloello1980
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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