Henry Nowak second thread, as requested.

[rolloverbeethoven]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5536249-henry-nowak?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

It was mentioned by Henry’s father that the perpetrator had never been handcuffed.

Eh?

I more concerned about how many people will use these loop holes to commit crime

If Mark dressed up in a kilt and walked through town with a knife with the intention to commit a crime
If he is stopped on the way to the crime and questioned.
If he said I'm off to a wedding so allowed to carry this - presumably - under current rules this would seem plausible.
If sam was doing the same but actually going to a wedding

How would the police determine which was reasonable and legal and which wasn't ?

No, but theres a reason we don’t let family members of victims decide on guilt/punishment.

The Novak family statement say he was never cuffed at any time

But you would expect this to be independently investigated and dealt with

You wouldn't want people minimizing what your son experienced

No one who wants to stab someone is doing that.

Chefs can carry knives. Legally. Big ones, not little ones. They could stab someone. Plenty of chefs are alcoholic either anger problems.

You could be moving to a flat down the street and carry a box of kitchen utensils, you’d be legally carrying a knife. You can then stab someone.

Going to a friends to help with dinner, just bought one from John Lewis, Wiccan going to a ritual gathering, literally any reason that is “oh, I’m going to this thing and need the knife for that, but it’s wrapped and in a bag.” And they could, if they chose, stab someone.

These things don’t happen. Because the people who want to stab someone are carrying concealed weapons illegally with the intent purpose of being able to stab someone. They don’t come up with excuses to carry it. I’m sure it’s about 50/51% of knife crime is committed with a normal kitchen knife - which aren’t being carried for traditional or religious reasons, nor are they being carried by a chef or similar. They are being carried illegally.

Closing these exemptions will have no effect on knife crime. It is a knee jerk reaction.

Knife crime campaigners have been trying for years to have pointed kitchen knives phased out, other than for professional use, and make it so you can only buy curved tip or flat tipped kitchen knives as they cannot easily pierce skin or clothing, and would be much less of a threat in spur of the moment “grab a knife” crimes and they would be less attractive to carry around without the sharp point. Are you joining that campaign? The one that really would make a difference? There is the brand Viners Assure who have started making those, and who are trying to help push safer kitchen knives which would be less use in knife crime as it is now. Do you own those?

They obviously cannot release the footage of the moment they realised he was dying, and found the stab wounds and tried CPR and everything. But they really need to release the footage showing the moments of arrest and being loaded into the vans. That needs to be public.

Well nearly everyone can see it’s a no, even if it’s someone else’s child.

no

Safer knives sound perfect. I will order those design now. Thank you for sharing the brand information.

No you wouldn't expect an investigation?

My dad (who works in the criminal justice system) would regularly condemn the use of a jury, as he says the general public are gullible and emotional, and unable to think outside of a narrow view. Every time something like this happens, I understand what he means.

The safer knives for the home as mentioned by previous poster.

https://user-dorqp7.cld.bz/VINERS-ASSURE-TRADE-PRESENTER

Does your dad think in this case the jury was wrong?

Does your dad think the victim was treated correctly by the police?

How interesting to hear about that. Legal system generally rates jury trials. Whilst not perfect it is a judgement of peers. If you look it up you’ll see a few orgs including the Criminal Bar Association strongly oppose these cuts.

What job does he have?

Fair enough. I looked through the local paper’s footage and Twitter, as well as the BBC.

He works in victim liaison.

I don’t know anyone who works anywhere in the justice system (from police to court) who thinks jury’s are the way forward.

When people make up their mind, it’s hard to sway them.

Yes his mother hid the weapon.

The jury is irrelevant here.

The police had a small amount of time to decide what to. They realised pretty damn quick.

If you're on about the way the police spoke to/handled the victim (keeping in mind they hadn’t deciphered whether he was the perpetrator), then I guess that depends on what type of police force you are after.

Here you go a couple of orgs that can give you the alternative view

https://www.justice.org.uk/news/justices-response-to-government-jury-trials-announcement

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2x01yne13o

‘Bar Council urges government not to pursue changes to jury trial under mistaken belief that radical equals effective’

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/bar-council-urges-government-not-to-pursue-changes-to-jury-trial-under-mistaken-belief-that-radical-equals-effective.html

Are you one of.the police officers involved
?

That’s awful.

Exactly! No to any knife, carried by anyone in public spaces (bar work ones when you are working).
I do not agree with exceptions to laws like carrying weapons!
I think the lead police officer assumed this poor boy was drank, rather than serioisly injured. One of the female officers mentioned at least two times about checking him up for injuries, but the one leading did not make it easy for her, as he was handcuffing him. Apparently, he had a cut on his face, yet he was arrested, instead of checked properly for further injury. It is heartbreaking. He was not resisting, not trying to escape, he could barely talk. The officer did not need to handcuff him on his back. At all. They could have calmly checked him, use a torch or bring him closer to a good light spot.
I do not think he would have survived. It looks like he was fully unconcious within a few minutes of police arrival. I really feel for his family.

I have read the judge's sentencing again , he says this :

"The murder did not involve taking a knife to the scene with the purpose
to use it to commit an offence or to have it available to do so. It is possible that
you had a good legal reason for having the dagger when you met Henry."

The judge then applied that as a mitigating factor in his sentencing and reduced his sentence accordingly.

HOWEVER , we have been made aware that Digwa had an obsession with knives and weapons and was in court the day after his sentencing for possession of weapons in private and public places alongside his brother and father.

It looks to me like there's a loophole there in his sentencing.
Because he was carrying a 'religious knife,' it was seen as a none pre- meditated crime and seen as a mitigating factor.
If he had been carrying a kitchen knife would that have been an aggravating factor? And would he have received a longer sentence?

I just think if he has a history of obsession with weapons then perhaps he wasn't carrying it for religious reasons at all?