JUDGE lets pub thug walk free (Oxford Mail, September 25). This puzzling headline took my eye straight away because for some time I have had an interest in the pronouncements of Judge Julian Hall.

For a few months, this judge has made comments and given judgements which have, at best, seemed odd and, at worst, unbalanced.

Moreover, he seemed always to prefer clemency to justice as I see it.

Last Saturday’s example offers a good case in the sentencing of Adam O’Connor and Julian Potts.

Both men are criminals with very extensive records. Their latest crime – an unwarranted attack in public on a 62-year-old man seemed to endorse this.

The judge had to consider their records: O’Connor 27 previous convictions for 48 offences and Pitts 34 for 98 offences.

Judge Hall’s sentences were prison for one, and release for the other.

Why the difference in treatment?

Judge Hall considered that one assailant’s weapon was featherlight and anyway he had already had sufficient time on remand while awaiting trial for him to reform himself, so no prison for him. His mate, however, got four years’ gaol.

To those of us outside that court, both culprits should have had similar treatment, but now O’Connor walks free for another drug, or alcohol-induced attack while his mate and fellow perpetrator does four years in jail.

LIONEL HORNER, Eden Drive, Headington, Oxford.

  • Editor’s note: Judge Julian Hall has now retired from the post of Recorder of Oxford.