to think that 15 years sentence for Philpott is not enough?(132 Posts)
15 years for the deaths of six children?
I thought you could get 15 years or life for one murder ( and yes, I know the charge was manslaughter.)
The term life is meaningless if it's only 15 years.
It's not 15 years, he got life. 15 years is the minimum he will serve, then he is eligible for parole which may or may not be granted.
The judge was quite clear that life may in this case mean life; 15 years is simply the minimum.
It's life with no possibility of release for 15 years. If he gets released after 15 years that is up to the parole board. I doubt it will happen somehow.
Not to mention he will be in his 70s by then, and quite possibly not going to live much longer than those 15 years.
Minimum should be 6 x 15 years for each beautiful child
The other two convicted only got 17 years so in reality that means they'll be out in about 8. Realistically, they are far more likely to be walking free in 2021, than the chance of philpott being around for a lot longer
It's all pretty sick when you look at the crime
i doubt he'll ever get out, he doesn't seem the sort to keep his head down and toe the line so can't see him getting parole after 15 years. Plus he looks alot older than his actual age of 50 something so i doubt he'll live much beyoung his 70s anyway
Life should fucking mean life.
Put him in Wakefield and let the monsters take care of him!!!!
As others have said, he has a LIFE sentence and can't be considered for parole for at least 15 years. The parole board may decide not release him.
she should have got life too. murdering bastard and murdering bitch.
just seen the following on the bbc site
1124: The Press Association reports family members applauded as the judge finished her sentencing and shouted insults including "Die, Mick, die" and "See you, Mairead. Hope you enjoy life on your own".
Even if she gets out after 8 year what has she got as she's given up all her family for him she'll be as bad off on the outside as in prison- prob safer in prison
I think it's worrying that mairead could be out in 8 years and she would still be young enough to have more children
they were taking to social services on radio derby yesterday and they more or less said that she would never be allowed to have children or even to be around children for the rest of her life. Obviously they can't stop her getting pregnant but any child she had would be removed at birth
Wannabe - I think they'll probably give her a new identity but have her on SS radar if she ever does.
I don't think Philpott will get out. He's full of himself and will get into trouble inside. Parole would probably be denied,
Mick will serve far longer than the 15 years - if he ever gets out.
His wife, well, now he's out of harms way SHE may well show remorse and get out on parole knowing she would at least be safe from him.
i dont know
she may also be released under a new ID and end up married to someone who has no idea who she is! sadly I fear she is the type drawn to "no good" men and will end up with another bullying scumbag
actually I do't think they'll give her a new identity. it's not actually that common for this to happen, and besides, she's probably more at risk from her own family than from the public at large.
I'm not a fan of vijilanti justice but if a member of my family did this too their child I dont think I could be responsible for my actions, and wouldn't think badly of a family member who decided to harm her in this event. And yes, I think family different to random members of the public....
interesting thought - say she did end up with another man, and pg, and ss on the case to remove the baby at birth - how would this be explained to the babys father/paternal GPs without blowing her "cover" ?
she is also a scumbag though. she killed her own children. she deserves everything she gets.
Oh, so does he, don't get me wrong, but he's unlikely to ever be released whereas scum like her could be walking among us again within the next eight years.
wannabe - any family member who harms her by taking justice into their own hands makes themselves as bad as she & mick are in harming their own. I abhor violence in all forms - would not stop me being very very angry, but would never resort to harming them - what good does that do to their OWN kids then? They would still be subject to the law, regardless of however "justified" people thought it was.
I don't think they'd give her a new identity: she's an adult, she has been found guilty. It's not like Mary Bell/the Bulger killers who were children at the time of their crimes. She may of course choose to change her own name but she'll have been released on licence so for the first nine years she'll be closely monitored and could be recalled to prison. Thereafter she'll still never shake off the authorities.
she couldn't be given a new identity in this country. she is too recogniseable.
but any father of any child would need to be informed of the risks she posed to children...
Thank god for that! I hope they don't give her cosmetic surgery as well as a new identity.
And as for him he looks 70 already I very much doubt he will last 15 years
no I'm not saying it's right but I can understand why it might happen in this kind of instance. if e.g. my sister killed her children (she never would, but ykwim) it would be very, very difficult to see myself ever being able to be in a room with her without the wish to resort too violence born out of anger for the los of those children, children that were a part of my own life iyswim. As I said it's not right but it is different to pure vijilanti justice...
I hope he speds the rest of his natural life in prison, the bullying abusive nasty scum, unfortunately the same cant be sad for her
She couldn't be married to someone who doesn't know I don't think. Even Venebles has to inform any person he builds a close relationship with.
what happened to maxine carr (soham) wasn't she given a new ID in the UK?
if you read that someone had murdered say, their sister, because she had killed her six children can you honestly say you would feel no compassion for someone who resorted to that? I would, and I am usually the first to jump on the "violence is wrong, vijilanti justice is wrong," argument.
No, two wrongs don't make a right, but yes, I would view someone who killed a relative in those circumstances differently to a cold blooded murderer or even a hardcore vijilanti.
maxine carr was given a new identity partly because she only served a two year sentence and partly because of the emotive nature of the case. bearing in mind that maxine carr served her sentence for perverting the course of justice yet the media almost painted her as a murderer herself.
I watched that panorama programme about it, was so
Except in the most disfunctional families, I would think anyone who has suffered the dreadful things that Maireads family have, would be all the less inclined to harm the perpetrators becasue they know how violence rips families apart and they would not want that for their own families - with them in prison!
If you were unattached and childless, or already had a terminal illness, then you might not give a damn anyway.
The reason we have laws is to stop vigilante behaviour and not act like pack animals.
If my hypothetical sister manslaughtered her hypothetical children, the last thing I'm going to hypothetically do is murder her and leave my own children motherless whilst I'm incarcerated. Or perhaps the law wouldn't apply to that hypothetical situation?
thats what I was trying to say - HBB did it better!
Maxinne Carr has been given several new identities, she kept blowing her cover because she wanted to be relocated abroad. She was in a village close to where I used to live at one point and told a pub full of people who she was and was moved the next day.
The sentences in the Philpott case were pretty much what I expected, very low. I suppose the judge has to look at the crime that was meant to happen and the death of those 6 babies were an accidental consequence of their fucking stupidity I really don't think either of them will get out alive tbh, other prisoners won't take too kindly to what they did. I'm not sure about the other guy, I don't know what his involvement was exactly.
Maxine Carr apparently recieved cosmetic surgery to stop her being recognised
With such a horrific and well known crime...how long until they are lynched in prison? Even criminals have a twisted sense of morals. And the cunts can't spend their whole sentence on protection...
Judges can't just make It up as they go along- they have to follow sentencing guidelines and the key thing here is that there was no evidence that they intended to harm the children, and indeed there must have been quite a lot of evidence to the contrary- that it was a plan that went wrong
It would be far more palatable to us if we could see them all banged up for life. What sticks in our mind as outsiders is the deaths of 6 innocent kids, but the judge has a far tougher job to do than us. Having said that, I'm more concerned tbh about the low sentencing for the wife and friend... But I guess we have to leave it to the experts. 8 years which is what the 17 is in reality seems pretty low
Am shocked about the Maxine carr thing... Why did she want people to know her identity? How did people react? Or didn't they believe her?
I don't think the wife and accomplice got nearly enough time....she could still thoretically have children when she gets out in what is likely to be 8 years time!
As for Mick, I'm not a condoner of violence at all usually but I wouldn't be too upset if something unfortunate happened to him inside... He is a truely dangerous individual and should not come out of prison alive.
She wanted people to know because she wanted to be moved abroad, she had, apparently, done it a few times and been moved and I assume she thought if she blew her cover enough there would be nowhere safe in britain for her to go so the police would have to relocate her where she wanted to go.
A friend of mine was in the pub when she came out with it, apparently it was just disbelief from people to start with, she kept on repeating it and the landlord told her she had better leave, she had then obviously went home and told the police who moved her. It was a tiny little Cornish village, no-one suspected a thing, they were all being friendly and welcoming to her, she came out with it totally unprompted. That was about 7 or 8 years ago now so I don't know if she ever got her wish and got moved to another country.
Sickening though this crime is, the intent was for the children to be saved rather than killed. Hence why they were convicted of manslaughter and why the sentences are probably lower than they would have been for the murder of 6 children.
I really doubt Philpott will get out of jail. I can't imagine he is going to keep a low profile or be allowed to keep one by the other prisoners.
less than 3 years per child, disguisting, put the added delight of him stabbing his previous partner, i does not seem anywhere near the right length of time
I would expect Mairead to be given a new identity in line with Maxine Carr - it's the emotive nature of the crime that prompts it rather than being a child or adult at the time of conviction. Once you have 'done your time' you are entitled to protection like any other person, so if a new identity is necessary for that then that's what'll happen.
I very much doubt Mick Philpott will ever be released. Law types on Twitter are saying that a life + 15 min sentence is the highest given for manslaughter and is comparable to a standard murder sentence. So looks like the judge has been as tough as she could have been on him.
The other two, well, I don't know. Moseley apparently started telling people he had done it and been in it along with Mick. He seems unbelievably stupid. He has kids of his own and the ex-partner, unsurprisingly, wants nothing to do with him now.
Can I just oh back to the idea that if a family member was involved in a heinous crime/murder of a child one would be driven to attack them.
I have to say, whilst I understand why people posts it - if anyone ever hurt my child I would kill them - it's not really true is it?
Because otherwise we would be constantly watching a stream of revenge trials.
I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to lose a child, let alone to murder, so to say 'I would do x ' seems ridiculous.
The only conclusion to draw from the lack of revenge attacks is that those parents just don't care as much as we would. Which is nonsense of course.
Missy that's disgusting and such an insult to those girls. I genuinely believed her taped reaction to what he did was honest but if she wants to go abroad she should have worked and paid for it herself.
Maybe I'm biased having the same surname and being from the same place the amount of shit my family and I got was disgusting.
Sorry for hijacking op. I feel so sorry for the family who weren't involved
He has a LIFE sentence with a minimum term of 15 years before he can be considered for parole. Being considered for parole does not mean automatic release, the parole board can and does refuse parole. It is entirely possible given Mick Philpott's age that he will die in prison.
I would put money on Mairead topping herself inside. She is clearly very vulnerable and the sort of person who can't function without a bloke and despite being twisted and pathetically weak is obviously bereft without her kuds. If she is still alive in 12 months I will be surprised. As for him, I think he will likely die of natural causes.
Phillpot will be leaving a life where was a minor celebrity, and lived a life in which he was in total control, and going into one where he will be lowest of the pecking order, with no control at all for at least 15 years, if not for the rest of his life.
I think he'll lose that arrogant swagger very, very soon.
To even be considered for parole he would need to accept guilt I think? I shouldn't imagine he'd get parole very easily tbh. I do think the other two should have got life as well, but that's just my opinion.
I don't think Philpott will last long in jail. Not the sort to 8keep his head down is he?
And I'm reliably informed those step/stairs are notoriously slippy and of course the guards often can't see everyone can they?
I think the judge would have liked to give him more but as others have said her hands are tied. She did at least give it a lot of thought & did what she could.
Why not read what the judge has said and engage your brain instead of jumping on the lynch mob bandwagon
He will serve a minimum of 15 years and does anyone here really believe he will behave in prison he will not be coming out
Don't want to hijack the thread, but that issue about new identities is interesting and I wonder if anyone on MN knows about it from a professional view - though not sure how much they're allowed to divulge! I assume Maxine Carr wouldnt be able to just move abroad of her own volition. Because I imagine once you have had new identities, where you live, work etc is controlled by the police or a similar body. I guess the fact that she was desperate to reveal her true identity is an indicator of how one must feel- ie continually watching ones back. To blow her own cover must have felt preferable to waiting for a time bomb to go off. So I don't think anyone should feel that she's 'got away' with anything; her life must feel like a constant waiting game, and I believe she has kids now too which must make it worse. Not that I feel sympathy- she was convicted of a very serious offence.
Interesting piece from a criminal psychologist about the 3 convicted. Identifies Mick as narcissist and having sociopathic tendencies.
Can absolutely see your point janey it's just hard to sympathise sometimes.
With mairead I understand the judge taking the abuse she suffered into account but with Mosley he did a trial run so why the lenient sentence- is it because he turned against philpot?
Even if he does the minimum of 15 years, can't see him living too long beyond release- hardly a perfect specimen of good living, is he?
If Maxine Carr keeps blowing her identity, then it's probably best to keep giving her new ones, not to protect her, but to protect those who might not be able to help themselves from doing something stupid and ruining their own lives.
Are there any high profile child-killers around who have been released?
How could you know she has kids Janey?
I don't think you can compare Maxine Carr with this situation. Maxine Carr was not in Soham at the time the girls were killed. She was found guilty of perverting the course of justice by giving a false alibi. She was given a false identity because of the likelihood of people doing her serious harm as some people failed to grasp that she actually didn't have any involvement in the girls deaths
Mairead Philpott has been found guilty of manslaughter. She'll serve her time and be out like any other prisoner. There is no precedent to give her a new identity
Wannabe the judge said, I believe, that Mairead and Moseley got lighter sentences because it was clear that Mick was the driving force behind the whole thing.
Jins the 'precedent' surely is about the emotive response to the crime and the likely reaction when she gets out? So in that case, there is a precedent. Same with Venables and Thompson, who have also served their time and come out but still got new identities.
Perverting the course of justice is a really serious offence though Jins. It's not murder, no, but to be fair I don't think the feeling against her is all because people are too thick to realise she didn't commit murder. It's because she was convicted of a very serious offence and actually got a very light sentence for it.
I don't know she has kids Victor, I said I believe she has, as this has been reported fairly widely on the internet at times
I think victor it was in the news that court orders had to be obtained to prevent her children from knowing her true identity
Very few criminals are given new identities. The Bulger killers and Mary Bell because of their age, Maxine Carr for the reasons above
Witnesses are given new identities rather more frequently
Mairead Philpott will face the same reaction when she gets out as any other killer does. Baby P's mother is eligible for release and there hasn't been confirmation that she'll be getting a new identity as far as I know
I'd say philpot should be hanged. There's my two pence worth, I'm sure some child killer sympathizers will be along to say how capital punishment is wrong though.
How thick to say that being revolted by the idea of capital punishment equates to sympathising with child killing.
I agree with capital punishment, even so I don't think it would be appropriate in this case. That doesn't make me a sympathiser or apologist
yellowtip, you are quite right. waterfallsover's post shows why we have a formal judicial system. people don't get to offer rough justice to anyone they please. i don't believe in the death penalty, but people like him and the one who killed baby Peter test your resolve. if someone dropped a rock on his and philpott's head, it would be no loss to society.
hasn't maxine carr disqualified herself from going to live in another country? who would want her? you have to be 'perfect' to get into other countries, she is not.
I do not agree with capital punishment and I know perfectly well I am no 'child killer sympathiser'. Feel free to have your own opinion but don't draw idiotic conclusions about other people's values as a result.
Pagwatch I don't think its something everybody means but I can certainly believe that some people would, maybe even a few more depending on the nature of the harm inflicted to said child.
This case only happened recently. I've certainly seen reports of similar revenge attacks.
I am not doubting it happens sometimes Tig.
I am just doubting people who say 'in this unimaginable situation I would do x' because I think it is simplistic and not born out by the remarkably small number of people who actually do x
Yes I think obviously the percentage of people who post comments like that are taking a simplistic view and are unlikely to have this as their primary thought if something awful were to happen.
However, of all the events or horrible situations in life, I know that families and more specifically children can drive you to do things you previously wouldn't have even contemplated.
I'm sure if you've ever seen anyone harm your child in the slightest way you've felt a reaction so whilst agree it comes from a simplistic and not entirely balanced or factual place, there is often some personal evidence for making such a comment.
Unless they keep him in solitary he will probably not get out of prison courtesy of some other prisoners . She is obviously quite vulnerable but didnt come out of the Panorama programme looking any better as her family had obviously tried to get her away from him and she had chosen to stay . I do think her sisters both came across very well in the programme .His response in the courtroom as they took him down just about sums him up .
Thanks Janey Those poor kids. Can you imagine finding that out one day?
What do you think Philpott meant when he said 'its not over yet'? Do you think he means an appeal?
I think the "It's not over yet..." comment is just a variation on the "I know where you live...." threat beloved by so many charmers of his ilk.
What's he going to appeal against? The length of his sentence, or the nature of his conviction? I wonder - anyone got any ideas?
I keep reading that they didn't mean to kill their children and in a way I accept that but why did they not put measures in place in their stupid plan to at least give the kids a chance. Why not wait for the kids to be at a sleep over? Why did they use an accelerant on the flames? Why was the window not open in the bedroom?
It is these questions that make me think that he didn't really care for his children at all. I think his wife was in an abusive relationship and feel that she will, once she is away from him, accept her guilt, show remorse and live for ever with the terrible thought that she put him before her children.
Still trying to be the hard man, and never wanting anyone else to have the last word. I don't see how he can appeal. The forensics all seem straightforward and the police have the tape of him and the other two giving the game away in the Premier Inn. What grounds could he have for an appeal? He'll be staying put.
I suspect we agree Tig. I just see it as incredibly unhelpful I suppose.
It's like all the people who say 'if anyone ever laid a hand on my child I would kill them' yet when faced with a child alleging abuse they rarely respond as you would expect.
As soon as we think an overwhelming urge to physically retaliate is somehow the loving response it makes real life experience very confusing.
But I suspect I am sounding pedantic and irritating so I shall go out
sovery that's exactly what I said to my husband , why use the petrol ,if you were intending to get in and save them why not just put a lighted newspaper through the door and all the bedroom doors were open ,if they had just closed the doors it would have given the children a bit more of a chance . It doesn't bear thinking about its so sad .
I can't imagine there's any chance he will be granted leave to appeal.
My comments around the family doing something to her are based on the fact they shouted "die bitch" at her from the public galary as she was sent down. No it's unlikely to happen but it could, and while I don't condone it if it did society wouldn't exactly be a worse off place without someone like her in it...
But equally the "someopne in prison will do them over," comments are just as unlikely because while attacks on prisoners are fairly frequent, it's rare that they are fatal. Yes I too would be more inclined too think she will kill herself and no, I wouldn't exactly feel that it was a great loss if she did. Her victims are dead, she was the family, so it's not like Shipman or Fred west where killing themselves left family of victims behind who felt they had been robbed of justice.
And he will hopefully die in prison somehow, although probably too arogant to top himself more's the pity.
There's so little been said about the other bloke though, why on earth was he involved in it all?
I think the reason they didn't put measures in their plan sovery, is they were just irredeemably stupid, sadly.
I'm wondering about Lisa, she's been kept out of it till now, but now the trial's over, I bet you anything the tabloids are banging on her door for her story.
Mick Philpott has always been top dog in his world. I wonder if he can carry on being the arrogant bully he is when he will be faced with other violent men
I think Lisa has changed her and the children's names. That's why her face wasn't was blurred in footage.
Maxine Carr is still in this country. She has been moved a few times over the past few years but has been in a 150mile radius for the last 5 years. Mainly because she's been recognised and the police decide its in her best interests. She hasn't outed herself but doesn't seem to deny who she is either. I don't know if she had plastic surgery the rumours suggest she did but it has never been confirmed. It can't have been that drastic if people still recognise her.
Mick will not get released. He's too violent and controlling and I seriously hope his time inside is made significantly uncomfortable by his fellow prisoners. He will not be welcomed with open arms that's for sure.
I don't think it will be long before Mariead comes out and tells of a controlling abusive man. Although she should never of gone along with it I can't help wonder actually did she really feel like she had a choice? Look at what Mick tried to do about his mistress who simply left him, get her framed for murder taking her kids off her and all because she decided to get out of a controlling , violent, abusive relationship. She was terrified of him as he used to beat her up and use her children against her. He stabbed his ex girlfriend and her mother, he physically assaulted someone simply because of road rage, he's now being looked at for rape of another woman!
I'm not saying she is not to blame, of course she did wrong as she didn't protect her children and sadly they died as a result, which is always horrific, but I have trouble believing she wasn't induced and controlled by him. There have been no reports of her being a violent, neglectful controlling hateful woman. She seems very much more to have been manipulated and controlled by him from day one. I believe she would have agreed to anything he suggested because she worshiped him.
Lisa Willis has got a new identity, I heard in reports yesterday. And in footage I have seen her face has been blurred out.
I'd say philpot should be hanged. There's my two pence worth, I'm sure some child killer sympathizers will be along to say how capital punishment is wrong though.
Why on earth would you want a quick dispatch for him? Greatest punishment is surely the long barren years stretching out ahead of him - no kids, no money, no fame, no council house upgrade, no harem of slathering females ever ready to do his bidding.
There may be the odd idiot who fancies herself as wifelet no 106 willing to put pen to paper but I hardly think that'll be enough to satisfy a man of his tastes.
It's inconceivable to think that this woman will potentially be able to go on and have more children.
And in footage I have seen her face has been blurred out.
A quick glance over Google images shows a fair few photos where her face hasn't been pixelated. Hope she and her kids manages to rebuild their lives far, far away.
I've worked in the prison system. He got life with minimum of 15 years to serve.
That means he will not be considered for parole until he has served 15 years. In my experience he will have to do at least 25 years
and I doubt he will even get out tgen
I think his behaviour in prison will be poor and that will go against him.
As for her, well she will have a miserable time as will be a target for bullies and will be hated
I imagine they will both have to be kept under segregation for their own safety.
To get parole do you not have to admit your guilt or did I dream that one up ?
That's right Floral, I also think that the Home Secretary (whoever is at time) can over rule and say 'this person, whoever' will never be released, I'm sure that has happened with some cases?
IIRC it happened with Rose West but whole life terms are very very rare.
I believe that the prisoner has to show insight into what lead to the crime, the impact it had and have had to have taken steps to deal with behaviour problems and attitudes that may have lead to the crime. If someone shows no remorse or understanding of the impact of what they have done then they are unlikely to meet the criteria.
The radio news item immediately after the philpot sentencing, was about a crooked policeman who pocketed loads seized drugs and then sold them on.
He got 23 years.
I know drug dealing is a serious crime, with lots of knock on consequences, but I cant for the life of me see why it would result in a higher sentence than killing 6 children.
Sorry should have added
Its more than just admitting guilt.
So in theory if they continue to claim they didnt do it she will serve the whole 17 years and he will never get out ,that sounds a lot better .
Its difficult to comment on individual cases. The policeman got a shorter sentence than Mick Philpott who got Life.
The issue with crooked policemen is they get a higher sentence because its abuse of their position of trust in society not just the crime they commit.
They were lucky to have the book thrown at them. What I don't understand is why they thought that setting fire to their house was a good idea.
Are they really that stupid that they didn't realise that setting fire to a house with kids in it, could result in the death of those children? If they knew that may happen and went ahead with their plan, then they should have been done for murder.
They may not have intended to kill their DC, but I'm sure they knew there was a chance the DC could die in that fire and they went ahead with the plan anyway .
Ah yes Chazs, I've just googled, there are 35 people serving 'whole life' tarrifs, but is that given by the judge or Home Secretary? But in the event of a lifer, is it not the Home Secretaries ultimate decision as to whether that person can get parole?
For murder you have to intend to kill or seriously harm - they didn't.
However, the judge did sentence them at the top end of the range for manslaughter because lets face it any half sensible person would have realised that the risk to the children was enormous.
One problem is that if Mick Philpott does have sociopathic tendencies one feature can be a reckless disregard for the safety of others so quite possibly he would have mentally dismissed any risk as unimportant.
It used to be the Home Sec who decided on Whole Life Tariffs but I think that was changed as it was felt to breach Human Rights as it could be seen as a political decision rather than a judicial one so it is now the Judge who has assessed all the facts of the case who makes the decision rather than a politician. Whole Lifers can apply to the Home Sec for release on compassionate grounds but that is also very rare.
For murder you have to intend to kill or seriously harm - they didn't
I thought for murder you dont have to prove intent to kill/seriously harm but rather wanton disregard (paraphrase) for the victim's safety. This case certainly seems to fall within those parameters.
There was a case of a little boy killed in Glasgow about eight years ago by a moron firing an air gun from a nearby window. It was accepted by procurator fiscal, defence, and judge that there was no intention to seriously injure, far less kill, the child or anyone else. Nevertheless the perp was charged with murder and convicted. He's now doing a minimum 13 years for murder.
Can't see an obvious material difference in the recklessness involved in his actions versus the Philpotts.
Maybe the prosecution was worried that if the defence successfully argued that they hadn't intended to kill the children, they would be found not guilty of a murder charge and so would get off altogether. AS it is, I believe the life + 15 yrs minimum is comparable to a standard murder sentence so the judge has tried to make it what it would have been anyway for a murder conviction - in Mick Philpott's case, at any rate.
Pumpkin your example pretty much backs this up - fairly similar sentencing in your case, min 13 yrs for murder vs min. 15. for MP's manslaughter charge. So in practical terms it would have been this kind of outcome on a murder conviction too.
I think when they were originally arrested they were charged with murder but the police felt that they may have had difficulty getting them convicted of that so went for manslaughter instead as that way they didnt have to try and prove that they intended the children to die .
AS it is, I believe the life + 15 yrs minimum is comparable to a standard murder sentence so the judge has tried to make it what it would have been anyway for a murder conviction - in Mick Philpott's case, at any rate.
We're left though with the rather anomalous situation whereby the two stoodges could potentially serve the full 17 year term and the pea brained mastermind, should he able to convince to convince a parole board, be out in 15. Unlikely, but not impossible.
I think when they were originally arrested they were charged with murder but the police felt that they may have had difficulty getting them convicted of that so went for manslaughter instead as that way they didnt have to try and prove that they intended the children to die
They didn't have to try and prove they intended the kids to die to get a murder charge to stick in any case. But it's all academic since the final outcome in terms of sentencing would seem to be about the same. And I doubt their future cell mates will trouble themselves too deeply in pondering the existential and legal differences between murder versus manslaughter.
Since it has now come out that he stabbed an ex 13 times how on Earth he was allowed anywhere near children is beyond me.
"They didn't have to try and prove they intended the kids to die to get a murder charge to stick in any case"
Which case are you relying on for that. I know when I studied this the position was clear that you did have to intend to kill or seriously harm. It wasn't enough that the harm or death might flow from your actions, you had to intend for it to happen.
I wasn't aware the position had changed, but I am happy to learn.
Note - there may be a difference between English and Scottish law on this point.
Note - there may be a difference between English and Scottish law on this point.
Maybe there is, I'm happy to learn too. . The case I'm referring to is that of Mark Bonini who was convicted of the murder of 2 year old Andrew Morton in 2005. He is serving a minimum 13 year sentence. He pled guilty to culpable homicide (Scots equivalent to manslaughter) but this was rejected by the Crown who sought - and got - a conviction for murder.
From memory, I don't think it was the Crown's case that he intended to seriously injure or kill anyone (he had been aiming for the teenage brother holding the boy having already shot at a fireman dowsing a fire).
Managed to find a quote from trial reporting:
On the fifth day of the trial, Mr Murphy added: "Mark Bonini admits that he fired the shot that killed Andrew Morton.
The Crown accepts that when he fired the shot he did not deliberately intend to kill Andrew.
This prosecution is on the basis that Mark Bonini's action was wickedly reckless."
You cannot recklessly murder in English law. Murder requires intent to kill or cause GBH. Foresight of a virtual certainty of either of those is sufficient (equated with intent).
This is from the HoL judgement in R v Moloney - Lord Bridge
"In the rare cases in which it is necessary to direct a jury
by reference to foresight of consequences, I do not believe it is
necessary for the judge to do more than invite the jury to
consider two questions. First, was death or really serious injury in
a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved
to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of
the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee
that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The
jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions
it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that
The problem the prosecution faced is even if death or serious injury was a natural consequence of the fire being started the defendant's didn't foresee those consequences because the intention was always a "heroic" rescue of the children. So you can't infer the necessary intent to kill or cause harm.
However, with a manslaughter charge their recklessness as to the consequences of their actions could be considered and they could receive a sentence similar to that given for murder.
Cheers for that, both.
Does English law currently have "malice aforethought" as part of its definition of murder?
Yes and no. The technical definition still includes 'malice aforethought' but it's a pretty meaningless phrase until you superimpose the cases which have interpreted the meaning.
By the way, R v Moloney has since been followed by a few cases which changed the test slightly. I think R v Woollin is currently the leading case on the issue of intent in murder cases, unless there has been something new quite recently.
Sorry to interrupt but the question was asked.
I'm pretty sure there have only been 4 possibly 5 new identities actually given to criminals on release in the uk
Loads who have changed names via deed poll but that's different.
Also Maxine Carr has never outed herself but it is a popular urban legend, there has however been a woman near her age with mental health issues who has pretended to be her on several occasions in several locations.
As well as about 13 different women who have been assumed to be her being assaulted after red top stories about her apparent location were printed
Maxine carrs legal team obtained the injunction on her behalf about a year after she was released and extended it to protect her first child when said child was born in 2011 she is also married. And yes she would be unable to leave the uk for longer than a month.
I don't know about cases - I was perusing Wikpedia (road to hell, yes I know) and came across this definition, "malice aforethought" apparently being one of 5 elements of common law murder:
With malice aforethought - ... The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet."
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury
And so on.
I understand the point about the miraculous rescue the Philpotts intended to effect, but is there a point at which English law would say, "Ok, no matter what you say you intended to acheive, shooting x at point blank range was sheer madness and no reasonable person would have foreseen any consequences other than death ... ergo, Murder"?
They were a pair of amoral fucking idiots. But they've lost their children. Six of them. What could be worse than that for a parent? And to know it was your fault? Their hearts must be broken and prison will be the least of their troubles.
Shag you would think wouldn't you but mick didn't look bothered to be honest and she just looked vacant.
What could be worse than that for a parent? And to know it was your fault? Their hearts must be broken and prison will be the least of their troubles
Anecdotal evidence suggests he couldn't give a Castlemaine XXXX. Their own families - who are understandably angry and bitter - speak of him attempting to cop a feel with any passing bit of skirt whilst his son lay dying in the hospital.
Has the other woman who got away from him made a comment? I wonder how she is processing all of this and explaining to her children about the monster that their father is. I wonder if they have moved her/offering counselling etc.
This is shallow but what struck me is that both women were very young and OK looking - I refuse to believe the bloke is early 50's. He has no teeth and looks about 65.
I think both women have learning difficulties. Serious learning difficulties. The wife has the look of 'the lights are on, but nobody is home' type of dazed look. It's not shock as she looked like that in the JK show.
"I understand the point about the miraculous rescue the Philpotts intended to effect, but is there a point at which English law would say, "Ok, no matter what you say you intended to acheive, shooting x at point blank range was sheer madness and no reasonable person would have foreseen any consequences other than death ... ergo, Murder"?"
Yes it's known as the "virtual certainty" in other words where the outcome of a persons actions are so foreseeable/probable so as to make them a virtual certainty you can infer or attribute the intention to bring about that outcome to the person.
I'm not an English lawyer so I can't remember the car off the top of my head and I'm also very sleepy so don't have the will to even google the case law.
I think both women have learning difficulties. Serious learning difficulties.
Unlikely, because she was tried as an adult, and if she had serious learning difficulties then at the very least that would have been cited in mitigation. If there was even a sniff of learning disabilities, her lawyer would have gone for that. Apparently (might be an urban myth) Jonathan Woodgate's lawyer tried that as he is not the brightest.
I think she had a very very difficult childhood/ teenage years. Not that that is an excuse, but for someone like me to understand the judgements that someone like her makes in terms of her domestic set up is impossible.
It's rare for house fires to take so many lives. It strikes me as likely that the Philpotts were so profoundly ignorant that they wouldn't have known how quickly children can die from smoke inhalation.
I don't believe he is unaffected by the deaths of his children however weird or inappropriate his behaviour since.
I think people want to believe he doesn't care because they want to make him out to be less than human. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was an involved dad before the fire.
I think it's depressing that he is being dehumanised in this way and being made out to be a monster, and that people can't see that the problems which bedevilled this family - extreme ignorance, violence, mysogyny, are prevalent in many of the grimmest UK households.
Normally in these cases I would say that any sentence that could be given would be nothing compared to the punishment of having to live with the deaths of your children.
But they don't care do they? Not once have I seen either of them look genuinely upset. The defence haven't used their grief to prove lack of intent. There is not one shred of evidence that they feel anything for those poor children. It's unnatural.
shag according to the Panorama programme all he did was the school run in the morning , he had little other involvement with the kids .I would love to think that they feel terrible but TBH his behaviour shows the opposite and surely if she felt that bad she would have stopped trying to protect him and told the police the truth .
If, as some people suspect, Mick Philpott has sociopathic tendencies he really could be unaffected by the childrens' death other than the impact it has on him and his way of life.
Its hard for us to comprehend but he may not have a normal emotional reaction to this at all.
Thanks for the info on intent. I will look up that case.
Just watched the Panorama documentary
I couldn't believe they didn't sit with Duwayne when he was dying.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.