You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The three men that have been found guilty of manslaughter, is it not murder because they didn’t set out to murder anyone just steal a quad.
Trying to understand why the calls to retry them on murder charges.
Very emotive case and my heart goes out to the family of the policeman that died.
There's photogenic young blonde widow.
Sorry to be blunt that I think that about sums it up.
Also Boris needs to make it clear that as Prime Minister he has no authority to meddle in the legal system.
Having just googled it it appears max sentence for manslaughter is 10 years? I could be wrong of course.
If these people get 10 years only that is a travesty. It's because they set out to break the law in the first place that someone innocent died. Surely 10 years (they will serve fewer years?) is a joke. And how could you not notice you are dragging something behind a car over such a distance, especially when you are trying to flee a crime scene and would be checking your mirrors every second?
I think the defence was that they did not realise he was caught up and therefore there was no intent?? Hence manslaughter.
There’s photogenic young blonde widow.
Sorry to be blunt that I think that about sums it up.
Theres a devastated young widow and family who disagree with the verdict.
Theres a devastated young widow and family who disagree with the verdict.
Oh that's why THEY are calling for a re trial but that's not why the 19000 people who signed that petition are calling for a re trial and it's not why it is being covered so widely in the press.
From the CPS site:
Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Murder cannot be committed by a company or other corporation.
So presumably the the jury decided that "intent to kill or cause GBH" was not proven beyond reasonable doubt
Max imprisonment for manslaughter is life. Normally it is less and that is why the three thugs decided to plead guilty to manslaughter since they will automatically get a third off the sentence. But we should remember that the length of sentence has yet to be delivered. Hopefully it will be lengthy, although (following sentencing guidelines) it will be reduced for their age and the fact that they come from poverty. However the judge may increase the sentence for the fact they they were in the act of robbery and a police officer was involved.
In any case there will not be a re-trial unless it can be proved that the jury was 'knobbled'. Regardless of the amount of column inches that will be taken up.
A bigger question is how to integrate the traveller communities into the mainstream. But that is far too big even for STW
It would probably need an admission, that they knew he was being dragged, before murder could be charged.
Unfortunately, this will be difficult/impossible to prove without the admission, so manslaughter remains the only realistic option
Given the contempt shown by the scrotes involved, I'm sure they knew the PC was being dragged
Oh that’s why THEY are calling for a re trial but that’s not why the 19000 people who signed that petition are calling for a re trial and it’s not why it is being covered so widely in the press.
Seriously? You are suggesting that the coverage and 19,000 signatories are due to the widow being good looking!
Personally I think it has more to do with the horrific nature of his death, the fact he was a police officer, and the apparent injustice.
The issue here is that they didn't mean to kill the Police Officer through their reckless behavior (manslaughter) when they first drove away and he got tangled up with the car.
The fact that they didn't stop for over a mile of him flailing away and screaming until the he was dead ups it to murder, in my opinion.
A bigger question is how to integrate the traveller communities into the mainstream
Paying tax, paying for property and following the rule of law would be a start. I'm not sure why a group of people in a social democracy are able to live by a different set of rules than anyone else.
Perhaps travellers don't want to integrate because it's not in their interest and crying discrimination is a great way to muddy the waters.
I would agree with Hugo. However I am not a law expert. As you can probably tell.
I wonder if they did a reconstruction to aid them with their study of 'Can you tell if you are dragging an 80 odd kilo screaming load on a rope behind a car over a mile distance'.
There’s photogenic young blonde widow.
Wow. You really are special aren't you?
Oh, and agree with Hugo.
Given that they carried on driving, I can see why people feel it should be murder.
However, try them for murder, jury can't decide "beyond reasonable doubt" and they get acquitted?
It's a tough one to call. Life sentence for the manslaughter with a 30 year tariff? The punishment, not the name of the crime, may be the solution.
‘Can you tell if you are dragging an 80 odd kilo screaming load on a rope behind a car over a mile distance’
And if you can’t, why were you weaving erratically from side to side while you drove?
Seriously? You are suggesting that the coverage and 19,000 signatories are due to the widow being good looking!
Frankly yes. As depressing as it is I think the general public really is that shallow.
Personally I think it has more to do with the horrific nature of his death, the fact he was a police officer, and the apparent injustice.
I think you are crediting the public with way too much intelligence.
Never ask the emotionally attached person of someone wo was killed what sort of sentence the killers should get as they will be the least objective person you could ever find.
Judge and Jury came up with the result and we go by that and retrial would only be if there was something very suspect in the case.
My understanding is that only the driver pleaded guilty (to manslaughter), the passengers did not.
It's perfect tabloid click bait*
Grieving widow, cop doing his duty, travellers, apparent injustice, rabid headlines....
If only we had an independent judiciary with hundreds of years of jurisprudence and case history to lean on, a system of advocacy and representation; strictly controlled to be a fair as is possible...rather than y'know...mob rule and lynching from the nearest stout oak...
*If that offends some of you, and you feel that your own righteous anger has nothing to do with what headlines you read over your cornflakes, but a burning sense of injustice...then write to your MP who is likely to agree with you, and you'll get "moar" and "biggar" prisons to "stop crime" and "create local jobs"...rather than tackle the root causes of crime in this country (which by the way, locks up more people than anywhere else in Europe, other than Poland)
The family's aim should be to make sure they get the maximum available tariff for manslaughter. Perhaps this campaign is more about raising enough anger from the public to increase the likelihood that the Attorney General will be pressured to refer the case as 'unduly lenient' if a short sentence is delivered.
As I understand it (IANAL):
They have to be charged with either / or, not both.
For it be murder, there has to be intent. They didn't intend to kill him, they simply didn't care.
If a murder charge gets thrown out of court, they walk away scott free. Therefore manslaughter is the safer charge.
I think that during the first trial (cancelled due to COVID) the coroner said that the PC suffered an immediate serious head injury, that would have rendered him unconscious, when his feet were pulled out from under him. Can only hope he had no awareness of what had happened. I feel sick when I think about it tbh.
The problem is, it would be hard to prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the driver knew he was dragging an unconscious person behind the car, given he'd just been pulling a 200(?)kg quad bike and was in a big car with several other passengers. Hook that weight to the back of a motorbike and you'd notice it, on the back of a car, I'm not so sure. They had no rear lights and IIRC the police car wasn't following them because the driver, not realising what had happened, was looking for his colleague, so there'd have been no visibility of anything behind them in the darkness. Put all that together and I can absolutely see why a murder charge wouldn't stick. If a PC had been stood in the road flagging them down and they'd ploughed into him then I think it probably would.
Never ask the emotionally attached person of someone wo was killed what sort of sentence the killers should get as they will be the least objective person you could ever find.
Yep we'd have brought back hanging for bike thieves if victims had control over sentencing....
The punishment, not the name of the crime, may be the solution.
This
Campaigning for a retrial because the result was ‘wrong’ is the fast route to mob rule. If they can prove the jury was got at or one of the accused starts boasting about what happened in front of someone who is likely enough to be a reliable witness or who records it, are the only safe routes to a retrial.
The judges I’ve met have been a pretty cynical bunch, I can’t see the sentences being particularly lenient.
The judges I’ve met have been a pretty cynical bunch, I can’t see the sentences being particularly lenient.
Judges have been more and more constrained over the years by sentencing guidelines, they don't have a huge amount of leeway anymore.
“trying to understand why the calls to retry them on murder charges.”
It’s in part due to the fear that the jury were corrupted by the families of the accused.
There is significant (but not enough to charge) evidence to show that members of the jury were intimidated by the travelling community in relation the case and one member of the jury behaved “inappropriately” towards the accused by way of nodding and smiling I believe.
Or perhaps it’s because the widow was pretty (what a nasty comment).
If a murder charge gets thrown out of court, they walk away scott free. Therefore manslaughter is the safer charge.
Whilst also not a lawyer this is incorrect. Since in this case all three were charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter.
The offense was unlawful killing. One presumes because the prosecution could not prove that the accused drove away KNOWING with forethought (mens rea) that harm would come to the police officer.
Earlier reports of him being trapped under the car etc... might have suggested they drove at him and ran him over or some other action (mens rea), but the reality was that the police officer was extremely unfortunate in becoming entrapped in a trailing rope and dragged to his death by their actions.
I am not at all surprised by the verdict, nor do I think it could be overturned.
Since in this case all three were charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter.
Yeah, and not sure what a re-trial would achieve.
If the trial was (only) for a murder charge, then they could conceivably walk away not guilty. But as things stand, they are convicted and could get life anyway.
Makes sense to me to wait until Friday and see what the sentence is before demanding a re-trial.
A bigger question is how to integrate the traveller communities into the mainstream. But that is far too big even for STW
They don't want to be integrated - they are quite happy leading their tax free, immoral lifestyle outside society and just dropping in when they want something - like the NHS.
Given the contempt shown by the scrotes involved, I’m sure they knew the PC was being dragged
+1 - their behaviour throughout has been disgusting but i wouldn't really expect anything less - they don't care about anyone or anything except themselves.
I am not at all surprised by the verdict, nor do I think it could be overturned
+1.
Frankly yes. As depressing as it is I think the general public really is that shallow.
Including you?
I think you are crediting the public with way too much intelligence.
I think you are confusing intelligence with moral standards, the latter is definitely not the preserve of the middle and upper classes.
The issue here is that they didn’t mean to kill the Police Officer through their reckless behaviour (manslaughter) when they first drove away and he got tangled up with the car.
The fact that they didn’t stop for over a mile of him flailing away and screaming until the he was dead ups it to murder, in my opinion.
I'd have to agree with that...
I think a plain old intent to 'just' injure would have been satisfied after about 1/4 of a mile, the claim that they were unaware he was there is frankly bollocks.
But it seems sufficient for reasonable doubt, and so a murder conviction based on the case presented was not going to stick.
Living/working local to the site of the incident and knowing people who live near, including some current/former police and the "strength of feeling" in the area with regards to the traveller community, the calls for a retrial aren't motivated by Widow attractiveness (you crass ****!), but perhaps not just by the tragedy of PC Harper's death alone
There was a real sense of anger immediately after, and several "semi-permanent" traveller sites ended up with Police Guards on and off for a couple of weeks after (whether it was to keep the residents in, or the mob out is up for debate). Quite a few people would say they wore their welcome out a while ago...
Apparently the families of the accused haven't moved on yet, some people I've spoken with believe that's at least in part because rural West Berkshire/North Hampshire are "rich pickings" for those unencumbered by a moral compass...
It won't get a retrial, The little shits will be out and Robbing again before their 30th birthdays...
If only we had an independent judiciary with hundreds of years of jurisprudence and case history to lean on, a system of advocacy and representation; strictly controlled to be a fair as is possible…rather than y’know…mob rule and lynching from the nearest stout oak…
I recommend you read the Secret Barristers book, it's an eye opener.
I imagine he may cover this in his blog at some point
Frankly yes. As depressing as it is I think the general public really is that shallow.
Including you?
I was answering the question as to why there is a clamour for a retrial amongst certain parts of society and I think that that is part of the reason. I thought that I'd read that the defendants are from the traveller community but couldn't find anything definitive. Assuming that that is the case, as has been mentioned here, then I'd be tempted to add a touch of racism to the reasoning too, despite there being no apparent legal basis for a retrial. Just because my thoughts on the why parts of the public appear to be reacting they way they are aren't particularly pleasant to hear doesn't make them wrong. I honestly believe that had this policeman been single for instance that this petition wouldn't have been raised and if it had there wouldn't be as many signatures.
As for whether this shallowness includes me, well I'm not clamouring for a retrial.
the latter is definitely not the preserve of the middle and upper classes.
I don't disagree.
gonefishin
There’s photogenic young blonde widow
That's about as grotesque a post as I think I've seen on here.
They don’t want to be integrated – they are quite happy leading their tax free, immoral
lifestyle outside society and just dropping in when they want something – like the NHS.
"they" presumably meaning every one of them, i.e. "they" are all the same. Do you see what you have done there?
Back to the Daily Mail comments section for you...
As for whether this shallowness includes me, well I’m not clamouring for a retrial.
No, but you are suggesting the main reason for it is because the widow is "fit" and have no evidence to back up your generalization of the great British public other than your own opinion so it probably does include you.
Stay classy.
“they” presumably meaning every one of them, i.e. “they” are all the same. Do you see what you have done there?
Back to the Daily Mail comments section for you…
Yep - stand by my original comments - there isn't exactly a wealth of evidence to contradict it eh?
The law is sometimes difficult to fathom when faced with an emotive issue.
When you consider the criminal damage of property, there exists provision for those who are reckless.
This means that whether you intended to or not is irrelevant, if the damage occurs then you’re guilty. However, when it comes to murder there is no account given of recklessness, this is always considered manslaughter. The big issue is that we know that manslaughter does not get anywhere near the punishment it often deserves, and the offenders are then back out of jail before the bereaved family have even got their lives back together.
Just look at the case of Nottinghamshire Police dog handler Ged Walker:
Parfitt knew his actions could kill Ged Walker as the officer was trapped in the drivers door; he was pleading with Parfitt to stop. Parfitt just carried on until Ged was shook from the car, suffering catastrophic head injuries.
So even If these three knew the officer was entangled and dragged behind the car, because they didn’t intend for him to die nor receive GBH level injuries, in law they cannot be found guilty of murder.
Clearly looking at the above link, Parfitt’s sentence did absolutely nothing to rehabilitate this killer. In the same vein, nor should anyone expect the sentences doled out to these three to rehabilitate them. They’re scum - plain & simple.
They’re scum – plain & simple.
+1.
Yep – stand by my original comments – there isn’t exactly a wealth of evidence to contradict it eh?
Well, those of us who've dealt with "traveller community" could tell you that there is a range of people and attitudes within it, as there is in any generic grouping.
Big edit - seen another of my FB friends who's an ex copper plugging this petition. I'm pretty sure that if it had been a member of the public rather than a copper, they would not have been getting involved, and probably would be pointing out the difficulties of getting a murder verdict out of a jury, as others have on this thread.
If the victim had been a traveller killed in this way while trying to stop three other travellers stealing his quad bike, it probably wouldn't have made national news.
Let's see what the sentence is before deciding if the law has been too lenient.
I recommend you read the Secret Barristers book, it’s an eye opener.
Yes, its a good read, but I don't see anything wrong with this outcome based on the current law. They couldn't prove murder so they got manslaughter.
I don’t see anything wrong with this outcome based on the current law.
It's not over till the sentences are passed, but if they are at the upper end of the manslaughter scale, I'm happy with that
I posted already but it didn’t seem to be noticed.
Perhaps this will explain it in more detail:
“LISSIE HARPER'S BATTLE FOR JUSTICE.
Dear Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, David Blunkett and any other person in which has the power, moral value and sheer strength of character to right such a despicable wrong for our Country…
I am sure you are acutely aware of the details of the recent trial for the conviction of my late husband PC Andrew Harper’s killers. Not only was this the second of two trials as the first one eventually had to be cancelled due to Covid-19, but it was also an utter injustice. Not only were the three remorseless men found Not-guilty by a possibly influenced jury of 11, but the way in which the trial was conducted, the suspected interference with the jury and the manner in which the defendants behaved was a total disregard for any legal justice system. Myself among what appears to be almost the whole country are frankly outraged and determined to have this miscarriage of justice overturned.
After the worst possible year any person can face I am immensely drained and devastated, More to the point I am not even sure if there is realistically anything that can be achieved by this letter. However what I will say is that if there is even the slightest chance that this abominable injustice can be rectified then I will do everything I possibly can to ensure that it is.
Not only was my husband brutally killed in the most savage and cruel way but he was also an on duty devoted police officer coming to the aid of an innocent member of the public whilst the defendants attempted to commit crimes as they admit without guilt that they do as a lifestyle.
There are many, many details in which made this recent trial atrociously below board including the fact that one member of the jury was dismissed well into the trial due to being over friendly with the defendants as well as their families, in addition to making inappropriate comments to the defendants in court in which was witnessed by members of the prison service. On top of this following the first trial it was suspected that there could be jury interference and was therefore necessary for the jury to be given special protection by the police after detectives had intel to suggest that family of the defendants were making plans to intimidate them. This alone in our eyes should be enough grounds for a retrial.
Further to this there had been moments in which the jury seemed to be behaving questionably, for example smiling up at the defendants families, as well as being seen to run out of court very quickly during lunch breaks possibly in order to avoid the swarms of traveller families camped out outside the court.
Believe me, I could go on and on about all of the aspects of this case that quite frankly have not been considered. It is important to note that the Police and detectives had left no stone unturned in order to provide a wealth of evidence against the defendants to show how culpable they are for the murder of my husband. The prosecution barristers made our case spectacularly and with clarity, dignified in the truth.
On the other side of things laid barely a defence whatsoever. Even the reconstruction in which to so many showed clearly that at least Henry Long would have known that he was dragging a heavy person behind his car played heavily to a conviction of murder. The jury by all accounts had a very clear journey to follow, a story of indisputable facts and detail was right there in front of them for all to see. These are the reasons that leave the entire country shocked and mystified as to how this could have possibly been a trial of honest and equitable decision.
The horrific details of the way in which my husband was killed need no repetition, once heard leave a devastating imprint on the minds of anyone who hears them. So for those who have sat day after day seeing footage and photos more horrifying than any they had probably ever had the misfortune of seeing before, for those who have sat whilst coroners divulge the senseless and heartbreaking injuries that Andrew received that night back in August, how is it at all possible to come to any conclusion other than a guilty verdict of murder?
I am very aware that myself and our families are of course biased, we will always know the truth, and in honesty if this had been a fair trial I may have been more inclined to leave it be and try to accept the verdict that has been reached. However along with the whole world it seems to me, we can all see as plain as day that it clearly has not been a fair trial whatsoever.
So whomever it may be that I must speak to, whoever the correct person, establishment or government body that has the power to help me to claim justice for an innocent man robbed of his life, to ensure that these three immoral, barbaric and shameless men are made to pay for their crimes, not only for Andrew but also for our whole country. I will keep fighting on behalf of Andrew, the future that was stolen from us and also the victims who find themselves in this unjustly situation in the future.
After all, who are we if we allow our legal system to fail us? What is this country if it does not provide justice for the innocent? What does it say to the public and the Police officers, old and new if every day they go out and put themselves at risk to detain these criminals just to witness them be treated so exceptionally lightly in the eyes of the law? It says that we are weak, that we will roll over to the despicable thieves and vile miscreants of this world and literally let them get away with murder.
In total honesty I could write and write until my fingers hurt, I could pour my heart further into this letter, I could scream and shout and stand with fierce determination in the eyes of opposition over this crucial matter. After all what else can I do for my husband now? My heart bleeds for the life that was so selfishly taken from us, but yet in arduous restraint I will not go on any further.
So I implore you to hear my words, see the facts that are laid out before us, and I ask with no expectations other than hope that you might help me to make these changes be considered, to ensure that Andrew is given the retrial that he unquestionably deserves and to see that the justice system in our country is the solid ethical foundation that it rightly should be. Not the joke that so many of us now view it to be.
Please feel able to share my letter far and wide to whomever you see to be appropriate and impactful.
Kindest regards Lissie Harper”
• Taken from Lissie’s Facebook page.
Sadly I think this just about sums it up
Never ask the emotionally attached person of someone wo was killed what sort of sentence the killers should get as they will be the least objective person you could ever find.
Judge and Jury came up with the result and we go by that and retrial would only be if there was something very suspect in the case.
Integrate travellers??
John McEnroe[You cannot be serious!]John McEnroe
You may recall last year that a traveller - Henry Vincent was caught burgling a house in SE London with an accomplice. He threatened the owner of the house with a screwdriver, who in turn picked up a kitchen knife and Mr Vincent lost that argument with his life. It was ruled the pensioner had lawfully killed the burglar.
The pensioner was then rehomed somewhere else in the country, probably under a new identity due to him being a marked man
The comments on local news websites and facebook pages summed up the general feeling of if he hadn't broken into someones house then wouldn't be dead so no sympathy whatsoever. Of course there were comments from his 'family and friends' saying he'd make a wrong decision, needed money to feed his family etc, which got shot down immediately.
The Vincent family were career criminals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_family
I wonder, how many folk here would notice an 80kg weight on the back of their car in the dark? Whilst driving away from a crime they committed? Too many driving gods I think.
Bunch of criminals, sure, absolutely guilty and culpable. But murderers? That's quite a leap. And why we have trial by Jury.
Sadly I think this just about sums it up
Never ask the emotionally attached person of someone wo was killed what sort of sentence the killers should get as they will be the least objective person you could ever find.
Judge and Jury came up with the result and we go by that and retrial would only be if there was something very suspect in the case.
Sharia law innit? The victims do not get to pick the sentence in our legal system.
Sharia law innit? The victims do not get to pick the sentence in our legal system.
+1.
I think the Manslaughter verdict is correct, i just think its a shame they couldn't make a murder charge stick.
Whilst also not a lawyer this is incorrect. Since in this case all three were charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter.
I was not aware of that, thank you.
Judges have been more and more constrained over the years by sentencing guidelines, they don’t have a huge amount of leeway anymore.
I used to know a guy who was a JP. He told me that their baseline was to issue the minimum mandated sentence and if they want to increase that then they have to have an objective reason as to why. That was 15-20 years ago, mind.
Dear Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, David Blunkett and any other person in which has the power, moral value and sheer strength of character to right such a despicable wrong for our Country…
Fell at the first hurdle there really, didn't she.
independent judiciary with hundreds of years of jurisprudence ... mob rule and lynching from the nearest stout oak
So when it's a police officer killed we have an impeccable judicial system but when it's a black person our judiciary is systematically corrupt to the last person?
“they” presumably meaning every one of them, i.e. “they” are all the same
I don't believe it's possible to keep, for example, a group of slaves living in the open air on a caravan site without everyone on the site knowing what's going on. That makes the entire site culpable in my view. Or turning up a 4am having just "bought" a quad bike with your car covered in blood and guts.
they didn’t intend for him to die nor receive GBH level injuries,
You don't pull someone behind a car and not expect them to receive GBH levels of injury.
And why we have trial by Jury.
We also have trial by judge where there is a significant risk of jury interference, as clearly happened here.
You don’t pull someone behind a car and not expect them to receive GBH levels of injury.
Not intentionally, no. But that wasn't what happened here so stop pretending it was. He got caught up in the moving rope as they drove off, a tragic accident but one that can easily happen in industry (at sea).
We also have trial by judge where there is a significant risk of jury interference, as clearly happened here.
Clearly. If by that you mean the opinion of someone who is in no fit state to be objective about it.
If jury interference and judge intimidation are actually true then that clearly needs to be investigated and would have a bearing on the outcome.
You don’t pull someone behind a car and not expect them to receive GBH levels of injury.
That’s common sense though isn’t it? Unfortunately in law, common sense isn’t that common. The CPS and Police have to prove the intent - if they can’t prove intent then it can’t be murder. As unsavoury as that is, it’s the law.
From the CPS:
“The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent. The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case”
So the prosecution have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) what was in the mind of the killer as he carried out his actions. That is the difficulty here, Proving the mental element. So unless you have an admission of guilt or witnesses who can evidence that the killer appreciated that death or gbh level injury was a virtual certainty as a result of their actions, then you cannot prove murder.
Yep we’d have brought back hanging for bike thieves if victims had control over sentencing….
I'm all for that.
0% reoffending rate.
They didnt set out that evening intending to murder a police officer, but they did set out to steal a quad bike.
Without an admission from the perpetrators then I can't see a murder conviction being likely, and if the sentencing ends up being towards the higher end of the available scale then I think justice will have been served about as well as is practical under the circumstances.
16 years for the driver, 13 for the accomplices
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46544144
The judge told the court: "Sometimes death may be caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes it is very close to a case of murder in its seriousness. That is so, here."
He said the defendants' denials hey did they know they were dragging anything behind the car were "clearly false" and he rejected the idea they had shown remorse.
"You killed a talented and brave young police officer who was going above and beyond his duty in order to provide a public service," he told the killers.
"You did so because you have deliberately decided to expose any police officer that got in your way to a risk of death."
The maximum sentence was life. I'm a little disappointed with the drivers sentence, to be honest. But I'm happier that he serves at least 8 years for manslaughter than walks away having been found not guilty of a murder charge.
As unsavoury as that is, it’s the law.
Lord Goff, now deceased but previously the most senior judge, disagreed with the CPS interpretation of the law. I don't think the Supreme Court has ever ruled.
They didnt set out that evening intending to murder a police officer
That's irrelevant. As soon as the situation develops to make GBH likely the mens rea for murder is established.
the opinion of someone who is in no fit state to be objective
I meant the opinion of the Metropolitan police. The judge disagrees, but then he has to really because the alternative would be to abandon the trial with all the scheduling headaches that comes with.
that wasn’t what happened here so stop pretending it was.
The judge has got this one covered I feel. They knew exactly what they were doing and had no remorse about it.
walks away having been found not guilty of a murder charge.
Never an option because a murder charge always comes with a possible manslaughter conviction.
As soon as the situation develops to make GBH likely the mens rea for murder is established.
Unfortunately not; refer back to my earlier post - the bit in bold:
The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case”
That means that although you suspect the mens rea you must also prove it. You have to prove the offenders thought process, that they felt or thought “he’s gonna die or get seriously hurt if I don’t stop”. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mental element existed, which is a tough call by any standards.
The judge disagrees, but then he has to really because the alternative would be to abandon the trial with all the scheduling headaches that comes with.
Really? So he's not dealing with an obstruction of justice because *sigh* timetabling. I'd like to think the CPS has their shit together somewhat better than a mediocre head teacher.
They knew exactly what they were doing and had no remorse about it.
I'm not entirely convinced they could have and explained why. Doesn't mean I'm right but the fact is they didn't get convicted of murder regardless of any other Internet experts opinions.
The judge has made a ruling so anything else now is whataboutery, no? I expect they're better placed to express an opinion than anyone else here.
For my 2p, I'm surprised (but satisfied) that the "accessories" got such a heavy sentence. They could easily have gone "we begged him to stop, m'lud." Such price solidarity I guess, you make your bed.
For my 2p, I’m surprised (but satisfied) that the “accessories” got such a heavy sentence
I was too but I suppose they were all heavily involved in it and either of them could have done something to stop it but if they didn't admit to knowing/realising they were dragging a body down the road then nothing to stop.
Does anyone think there will be any consequences for the friends & families of the convicted after they tried to hide/destroy evidence etc?
Scum of the earth.
I’d like to think the CPS has their shit together somewhat better than a mediocre head teacher.
You need to read the Secret Barrister book referenced above. IIRC we spend less on the CPS than we do on giving pensioners free TV licences, and they most certainly haven't got their shit together.
Does anyone think there will be any consequences for the friends & families of the convicted after they tried to hide/destroy evidence etc?
Given the allegations being bandied about regarding the families and the jury, if there was anything to find, the Police would be all over it, quite rightly, as he was one of their own.
You have to prove the offenders thought process
You are misinterpreting Lord Steyn. What he said was that if the jury feel that there is a virtual certainty then they should convict for murder. Remember he was dealing with a shaken baby case where there may have been considerable doubt about intent.
He made no comment on the previous precedents that a jury is entitled to infer intent from actions. The usual example is that an aeroplane bomber will be charged with murder even if it is impossible to prove intent to do anything other than damage a plane.
In bike terms he said that if a bike has a dropper post then it's a mountain bike but he never said that all mountain bikes must have a dropper posts.
Does anyone think there will be any consequences for the friends & families
No. They will close ranks to protect their own and the police senior management will not want to stir up accusations of racial bias.
No. They will close ranks to protect their own and the police senior management will not want to stir up accusations of racial bias.
There's a coppers widow raising stink in the tabloids and going to the PM, it may not be as clearcut as you think
I meant the opinion of the Metropolitan police.
You mean CPS, the Police don't get to decide whether to prosecute nor what the final charge is. The CPS will look at the case and use their (more) objective judgement to work out what makes sense given the strength of the evidence.
You need to read the Secret Barrister book referenced above. IIRC we spend less on the CPS than we do on giving pensioners free TV licences, and they most certainly haven’t got their shit together.
On a high profile case like this, they'll have spared no resource - obviously the extra resource will have been taken from other low profile cases which no one cares about.
There’s a coppers widow raising stink in the tabloids and going to the PM, it may not be as clearcut as you think
Luckily we have a reasonably independent judiciary, unless they can show abuse of process eg jury tampering, not a lot will happen.
You can't re-try them for murder without substantial new evidence coming to light specifically the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence.