IT is easy after a court case to criticise how a convicted criminal is sentenced.

Even though newspapers may have journalists in court, they are not privy to the reports which can influence how a judge makes his sentencing decision.

But even allowing for the most sympathetic reports that may have been written about Simon Clarke, aged 18, who was found guilty of causing intentional grievous body harm to 17-year-old Craig Williams, it is hard to understand why the sentence was so lenient.

As our front-page report yesterday revealed Craig has the most serious case of brain damage a neurologist has seen in someone living. The teenager cannot use his arms and legs and will be confined to a wheel chair.

When sentencing Clarke, Judge Timothy Mort said the 18-year-old was lucky not to be facing a charge of attempted murder.

Yet the judge decided that six years in a young offenders' institute was punishment enough. With good behaviour Clarke could serve only four years of the term.

Craig's mother, Mrs Pamela Walkden says her son is now serving a life sentence. She cannot understand the leniency of Clarke's sentence. Neither can we.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.