Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

PC Andrew Harper: Attorney General to review killers' sentences...

A seperate thread in it's own right, what are we to expect after a revision? Alot of people are blowing air at the justice system following these "leniant" sentances for these tossers

Let's do a pool per person on what the new sentance will be, I give you along with the current sentances imposed Friday previous

Jessie Cole: 13 Years
Henry Long (Centre): 16 years
Albert Bowers (Right): 13 Years

 
Why does it need a separate thread? You have repeated the sentences (after discounts for mitigations) already handed down for some reason...
 
They deliberately dragged a man over 1.4 miles of tarmac. Have a little think about how much (or little) of him would have been left after that.

******* horrible way to go.
 
I'm interested to see how this goes. As I made clear on the other thread, I think these guys - or at least the driver - committed murder and should have been sentenced accordingly.

But reading up the Judge's sentencing, it's difficult to argue without being an expert in judicial law that he was incorrect in the sentences he gave. He noted this was about as severe a case of manslaughter could be outside of a murder itself. He noted the maximum he could give based on that, but also the reductions he would have to apply based on age and the discount he would have to apply for a guilty plea too and the level of culpability of the other two etc.

People, myself included, feel the sentence was lenient. But are they going to up manslaughter sentences accordingly or something? How would that affect similar cases already heard? Personally I feel that an actual conviction for murder with the accordant sentences would be a far better way of addressing the injustice. But I do not swing in those circles except very occasionally to give evidence and no more, so I am very interested to see how this goes.
 
According to this educated summary
I'm interested to see how this goes. As I made clear on the other thread, I think these guys - or at least the driver - committed murder and should have been sentenced accordingly.

But reading up the Judge's sentencing, it's difficult to argue without being an expert in judicial law that he was incorrect in the sentences he gave. He noted this was about as severe a case of manslaughter could be outside of a murder itself. He noted the maximum he could give based on that, but also the reductions he would have to apply based on age and the discount he would have to apply for a guilty plea too and the level of culpability of the other two etc.

People, myself included, feel the sentence was lenient. But are they going to up manslaughter sentences accordingly or something? How would that affect similar cases already heard? Personally I feel that an actual conviction for murder with the accordant sentences would be a far better way of addressing the injustice. But I do not swing in those circles except very occasionally to give evidence and no more, so I am very interested to see how this goes.
It's already been confirmed their won't be a chance of a retrial as I understand
 
Without knowing anything about how the law or sentencing works regarding cases like this I can only speak of how I feel the sentences handed down - for the manslaughter of an on-duty police officer during the investigation of a crime - ought to be life, with a minimum tariff of 25 years before being eligible for parole.

Where the conviction is for murder of an on-duty police officer during the investigation of a crime the sentence ought to be life, with a mandatory whole-life tariff with no chance of parole.
 
It's already been confirmed their won't be a chance of a retrial as I understand

Yes, I thought that was the case. I agree with the judge's sentence based on the considerations that he had to take into account. I intensely disliked the reasons but I accept that from what he described, they were appropriate based on legislation and precedent. I read them on the way back from work having just done a tour of duty and seen how unhappy everyone at the station was about it.

If he was correct in the sentence, and a retrial can't happen, then what are they looking to do? I'm therefore very interested to see how this goes, because I want them to have much higher sentences, but would have been much happier that they were also correctly known forever as murderers.
 
I've written to my MP "suggesting" the sentence for the death of a police officer, whilst a crime is being committed, should be a mandatory life sentence without parole for the guilty party. I've also pointed out to my MP, in case he mentions the limitations imposed by the sentencing guidelines, that he as a law maker, has the power along with the other 649 members of the House of Commons to change them.
 

Mattb

LE
Without knowing anything about how the law or sentencing works regarding cases like this I can only speak of how I feel the sentences handed down - for the manslaughter of an on-duty police officer during the investigation of a crime - ought to be life, with a minimum tariff of 25 years before being eligible for parole.
Pretty sure that is pretty much the case anyway - minus the mitigations for age and the guilty plea.

Personally I'd like to see it pushed upwards a bit - they should he seeing a decade behind bars at an absolute minimum IMO, preferably two - and I think that even if mitigation applies it should still be a life sentence.
 
Could the best outcome be, that all the sentences are increased to 20 years. Then they'll all serve at least 10 years in prison.
Long (the driver and ringleader) was given an extended determinate sentence* of 24 years which is the highest term the judge could hand down for manslaughter

That sentence was then discounted for age and his early admission of guilt to 16 years of which he must serve a minimum of 2/3rds of his sentence which is 10 years 8 months before being eligible for parole.
* the extended part of the sentence refers to the time on licence after release which is 3 years added any unserved portion of sixteen years.
If he is released at 10y8m then time on licence will be 8 years and 4 months during which time he will be liable to recall to prison for any breach of parole conditions or further offending.


The other two were given a determinate sentence of 20 years, discounted to 13 years for age and immaturity. Again, a minimum of 2/3rd before parole eligibility gives 8 years 8 months. No extension for these two so only on licence for any unserved portion of their sentence.

Unfortunately, The highest Starting Point for Unlawful act manslaughter is 18 years. The judge, in his endeavours to apply the maximum he could, added time for the culpability level of each defendant and any aggravating factors (increasing the sentences to 24 and 20 years) but then had to deduct the mitigating factors (age, admission etc) to arrive at the maximum term in prison of 16 and 13 years before release.
 

Charles1948

Old-Salt
Thanks for your very informative reply. I hadn't realised that the "sentencing" protocols were so complex.

I'd thought that the judge could just say: "You'll go to prison for 20 years", and that was that. A very naive view, as you have shown.
 
I'd thought that the judge could just say: "You'll go to prison for 20 years", and that was that. A very naive view, as you have shown.
If wanting judges to be able to lock these people for the rest of their worthless lives is naive then I suspect that we are all guilty of naivety.

I think that under the Homicide Act 1957, Killing in the course of a theft and killing a police office acting in the execution of his duty, or of a person assisting a police officer so acting were both classed as Capital Murder offences punishable by death. Almost certainly Long would have gone to the gallows - the other two no doubt detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure / whole life.


(Voluntary manslaughter was a partial defence, mainly revolving around mental impairment or provocation)
 
When they abolished the death penalty they promised the public that life would mean life, that didn’t last five years. These three scumbags will be out in under ten.
 

Latest Threads

Top