A POLICE and Crime Commissioner (PCC) has weighed into the debate over a two-year jail sentence given to the attacker of a man left with life changing injuries by saying it was “too lenient”.

Ron Hogg, Durham’s PCC, said he was exploring what options were available to review the outcome of the case involving Stephen Starling, who battered Richard Stark, leaving him brain damaged and permanently disfigured.

Starling, 36, from Corporation Road, Darlington, was originally charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent, a charge which carries a maximum penalty of life.

But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) accepted a guilty plea from him to the lesser charge of causing grievous bodily harm and he was subsequently jailed for two years, although he will be released after serving half of that.

The CPS said the decision taken was for “evidential reasons” and because Mr Stark had no memory of the assault.

Mr Hogg, a former deputy chief constable at Cleveland Police, said: “The two year sentence given to Stephen Starling for the brutal assault carried out on Richard Stark is too lenient.

“It contrasts sharply with the life sentence which Mr Stark will now have to endure as a result of his injuries.

“As Police and Crime Commissioner, I have asked the police to review the processes involved with the Crown Prosecution Service and to identify where there needs to be improvement.”

He added: “Whilst all agencies are under financial pressure, cost is not an excuse for not pursuing justice.

“It is vital that the victim’s voice is properly heard. Agencies must work together effectively to secure good outcomes for victims and the courts need to have the ability to impose substantial sentences on people who pose a threat to public safety.”

Mr Stark, a chef who is originally from Thornley, County Durham, was attacked and left for dead in an alleyway off Victoria Road, Darlington.

He suffered severe scarring to his face, has mobility problems and now lives in a care home because the impact of his brain injuries mean he cannot live independently.

His brother Keith said the family were not consulted by the CPS over the decision to accept a plea to a lesser charge.

But the CPS said that as the basis was entirely evidential, a consultation would have made no difference.

It said there was not enough evidence to prove the higher charge and the acceptance of a guilty plea to a section 20 offence, or GBH without intent, was “wholly appropriate”.

In its response, Durham Police said it would have expected its officers to have been contacted by the CPS so they could discuss any decision with the victim.

It said: “We are working with the CPS to identify why this happened and how we can prevent it happening again.”

The force said it had nothing further to add when approached over Mr Hogg’s intervention.