Another Disgrace - Discuss/Vent Frustration Here!!

#2
Excuse me for going against the grain but there's no way he should have been convicted of murder if all he did was destroy the getaway car. The trial judge made a huge mistake, as did the prosecution service.

He should have been convicted of destroying evidence or perverting the course of justice instead of going for a showy conviction like this.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
And he has a terminal illness, we should all take a moment and think about those less fortunate than ourselves. Retrial next month should be good.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using ARRSE mobile app
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Surely he's an accesory after the fact, which still makes him culpable? When he found out that the car had been used by the murderers did he report them or assist them? If the latter then he should be in jail.
 
#5
Excuse me for going against the grain but there's no way he should have been convicted of murder if all he did was destroy the getaway car. The trial judge made a huge mistake, as did the prosecution service.

He should have been convicted of destroying evidence or perverting the course of justice instead of going for a showy conviction like this.
I would imagine it was seen as Joint Venture unless he destroyed the vehicle under duress?
 
#6
Surely he's an accesory after the fact, which still makes him culpable? When he found out that the car had been used by the murderers did he report them or assist them? If the latter then he should be in jail.
He should definitely be in jail. In fact, I expect he'll get a hefty sentence but it won't be for murder. Murder requires Malice Aforethought and unless they prove he knew about the murders before they took place that essential element of the charge is missing.
 
#7
He should definitely be in jail. In fact, I expect he'll get a hefty sentence but it won't be for murder. Murder requires Malice Aforethought and unless they prove he knew about the murders before they took place that essential element of the charge is missing.
The wording of the defence claim is very careful about this. It points out that the judge didn't rule on whether he what the car was being used for, not that there was no evidence he didn't know what it was being used for. Hopefully the PPS will appeal and the new judge will address that specific point in his findings.
 
#8
Meh. Maybe they'll get him, maybe they won't.

As long as the dissident groups remain small, "select" & "disciplined" (as the terms apply to such groups) we're not going to see many convictions from "ordinary, everyday policing".
 

Latest Threads

Top