PA
A career criminal has been put behind bars when his pleas to a judge that locking him up would breach his human right to be with his five children fell on deaf ears.
Wayne Bishop, 34, was given an eight-month sentence by a judge who said: "I am afraid, Mr Bishop, you have to learn that other people have rights apart from you.
"We all have the right not to have our homes and premises burgled. We all have the right to walk the streets without fear of being attacked."
The news follows our story yesterday about drunken mum Julie Cairns, 38, who was spared jail after her 14 year-old daughter Sammy sent a begging letter to the judge.
In Bishop's case, he had previously used European Human Rights legislation to successfully argue that he should be released from prison for the sake of his family life after he had been jailed for eight months after admitting a burglary at Mansfield rugby club and an offence of dangerous driving.
He was released the following month after arguing that not enough consideration had been given to the fact he cared for his children.
Judges ruled Bishop had a 'human right' to a family life – and replaced his jail term with a suspended sentence and curfew.
But just three months after he was released, Bishop was in trouble again – this time for a brutal assault on a man in a Spar shop.
And once again, he tried to argue that he should escape going to prison for the sake of his kids, Courteney, 13, Katie, 12, Taylor, 10, Brandon, eight, and Kyle, seven.
However, Judge Michael Stokes was having none of it.
"The rights that are set out by the European Convention on Human Rights are not to be produced like the ace of trumps to avoid a prison sentence," he said.
The judge noted that it was jobless Bishop's 17th court appearance. His previous convictions stretch back more than a decade and include a previous assault and two convictions for threatening behaviour.
It is thought his five children will now be cared for by his sister, Sherrie McKinley, who has six children of her own.
What do you think? Should the judge have shown leniency for the children's sake?Or it is do the crime, do the time?