ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Mairead philpott to appeal sentence(18 Posts)
Apparently she wasn't as instrumental in the deaths as the trial judge claimed in sentencing her.
Funny, I thought she reckoned she had nothing to do with it at all.
The mind boggles... she had nothing to do with it? She allowed her husband to set fire to her home with HER CHILDREN IN IT. I hope the judge laughs in her face.
BBC story here.
Her lawyer says she was instrumental in the deaths, but not in as substantial a way as the judge said at sentencing.
I think it is important that everyone found guilty is sentenced according to guidelines (even though there are aspects of the guidelines suck), and that sentences where there is sufficient doubt for the appeal court to agree to hear it, it is important that they do. Whoever it is.
wasn't there something about her making the 999 call - lying about what she and Mick were doing to try to help the kids during the actual 999 call? and she sounded calm too, in the extract I remember hearing,
undoubtedly he was the controller, but she was very much involved in the plan and the attempted cover up.
At least she now admits she was instrumental in killing her 6 children. I do believe that her appeal should be heard but the original sentence should stand. I don't think the original judge said anything untowards about her - The judge queried the contradiction that although Mairhead said she was controlled by Mick, she also stood up to him on a few separate occasions, so the judge was under the impression that she could have stood up to him regarding this plan.
I do feel a bit sorry for her. She was obviously in an abusive relationship, and she lost all her children. However, the judgement should stand I think - she wasn't forced to go ahead with the plan and she put her relationship with Mick before the lives of her 6 children.
she wasn't forced to go ahead with the plan and she put her relationship with Mick before the lives of her 6 children.
^^ this exactly.
It was such a stupid and dangerous thing to do, she gambled with her kids lives. She also continued to support her husband after the act. I don't know to what extent she was controlled by him, but if ever there was a time to stand up to him that would have been it.
I think she would have had a better case if her sentence was higher than Paul Mosley. As it was she got the same and it wasn't clear who had been more or less involved. If she was on the periphery of the crime she should have made that clear at the trial. I feel sorry for her too but more sorry for the 6 children who died at the hands of the people who should have cared for them above all.
I wonder if the fact that the marital coercion defence that Vicky Huhne tried to use was discredited in that case might otherwise have been attempted as a mitigating factor in this case.
(Northern Lurker - on the Padstow speedboat thread you have been saying that the surviving adult has suffered enough and therefore should not be held to account for any negligence or recklessness that might have occurred to cause the horrific accident - why do you not feel the same greater compassion for the dead victims than the surviving mother in that case?)
Just a question for those in the know.
Step 1. You go to court. Plead not guilty in the hope that you get found not guilty and sentenced accordingly - ie nothing.
That fails. You get sentenced
Step 2. You effectively change your appeal to guilty but claim lesser involvent in the hope of reducing your sentence. So this is effectively your plan B.
I do agree that sentencing should be in line with guidelines and should reflect the degree of involvement in and severity of the crime.
But...surely if you take the risk of pleading not guilty you are taking a gamble on a potentially inappropriate sentence in the hope of walking free. Why should more court time be allocated just because your plan backfired? Particularly when you could have been honest in the first place. Sounds to me (from that story, appologies if I am missing other crucial facts) that she was conservative with the truth at the original trial and now plans to tell a different story because her not guilty plea didn't work.
I can see the point of appeal when there is new and substantial evidence.
I can see the point of appeal if you think you have been found guilty wrongly...but this should be backed up with new evidence.
I don't think you should be allowed an appeal when your gamble on a not guilty plea failed. You took that gamble. You take the consequences.
<disclaimer I haven't followed the story that closely. .so my opinions may not be directly relevant to this case but are still opinions on who should and shouldn't bevallowed to appeal iyswim>
EdwiniasRevenge -And also, who is to say her new story is any more truthful? Its like that scenario of the girl who cried wolf. She's now desperate, so there is a chance that her new story will be exagerated.
I know what you mean about being honest from the start, but many people seem to employ this tactic. It must be how the system operates; their lawyers will tell them to go with Plan A and plead not guilty. If that fails then to appeal. Look at cases like Tia Sharpes murder and April Jones - both plead innocence. I guess the lawyers must think that it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt, but I agree why cant people be more honest. To me it shows lack of remorse.
If Mairhead was released early or exonerated, she would have a pretty hard time on the outside.
To be honest if I did what she did and lost my kids I would want to die, I would want to commit suicuide
I would NOT be trying get a shorter sentance
harsh, but true
no matter how abusive he was, and I do have sympathy, I cannot forgive her
"I know what you mean about being honest from the start, but many people seem to employ this tactic. It must be how the system operates; their lawyers will tell them to go with Plan A and plead not guilty."
If you have told your lawyers that you are guilty, they can no longer defend you if you plead not guilty, (unless you admit, say, killing someone but can't be held responsible because of an extenuating circumstance.)
Lawyers are, generally, out for justice whether they prosecute or defend. It is a tenet of our legal system, that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Part of that is ensuring that defendants, whether they turn out to be guilty or not guilty, have an opportunity to put a defence forward.
Yeah but my point is.
Why should someone be entitled to an appeal because they have changed their plea to guilty...but not as guilty as the judge thinks. Appeals for new evidence are one thing. Appeals because you have changed your mind about tge evidence that you have given presumably under oath just feels wrong.
If she'd pleaded guilty originally, that would have landed him in it too. He couldn't possibly, under those circumstances, be found not guilty. Perhaps she pleaded not guilty because she was frightened of him. (I don't know - just speculating.)
IMO, what this woman did was heinious. 6 children died because of a disgusting plan to frame a woman who had crossed them. 6 innocent lives were snuffed out. For this, the main perpetrator (mick) got a laughable sentence. Mairead and Paul got token sentences. As a mother I am appalled that those 6 innocent babies lives were so undervalued. Taking the life of a child should be an automatic life sentence in my book, and assisting someone who did that is just as bad. Why should Mairead get a lighter sentence? In my book she should get a longer one!
"For this, the main perpetrator (mick) got a laughable sentence."
I thought he got life?
Don't confuse the sentence with the minimum time laid down before he can apply for parole.
The appeal isn't 'trial attempt 2'. It won't change the guilty verdict.
It will be looking at whether the judge applied sentencing guidelines correctly. And for the higher court to agree to hear it, there has to be a sufficient case to put. It's not a new story from her. It is about whether the judge acted correctly when deciding the sentence.
scaevola Yes it wont change the verdict. But it was pretty obvious Mick was running that household
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.