Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why did Ian Stewart get 34yrs instead of 'life' ?

45 replies

KurriKurri · 23/02/2017 16:08

Sorry if there is another thread on this. Can someone explain ? I thought life sentence was mandatory for murder.

I can see that giving him a set number of years is probably sensible and will likely ensure he never gets out, but I didn't know judges had the choice when it came to murder.

OP posts:
LurkingHusband · 23/02/2017 16:11

Because modern reporting is pants ?

From www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-39064218

As he handed Stewart a life sentence, the judge said financial gain had been the "principal motive" for the killing.

Fighterofthenightman · 23/02/2017 16:11

He was sentenced to life but with a minimum of 34 years which pretty much ensures he'll die in custody which doesn't always occur with a standard life sentence.

TheCakes · 23/02/2017 16:15

It'll be life with a minimum term. So he'll do 34 years behind bars, apply for parole, and if it's granted he'll be on licence for the rest of his life.

Original poster
KurriKurri · 23/02/2017 16:15

Ah - thank you, only read the online news site - so got it wrong.

OP posts:
Riversleep · 23/02/2017 16:16

The sentence is always life for murder, but a minimum tariff is set, at which point he will be eligible for parole. The average tariff is about 15 years, so he has a fairly hefty sentence. It's unlikely he'll be released, especially if the find something dodgy in his first w ifes death.

travellingfailsman · 23/02/2017 16:16

As far as I understand it ... he has been given a life sentence - the 34 years is the minimum term he has to serve before he's considered for parole.

If he is released, the sentence still remain 'active' for the rest of his life and if he commits any other crime he could go back to jail for the rest of his life.

A "whole life term" on the other hand would mean the prisoner will never be considered for release.

I think. It's a bit confusing!

Rugbyplayersarehot · 23/02/2017 16:18

Complete evil bastard. And to dump someone in a cess pit, and her little dog, how utterly contemptible and vile. So upsetting that poor lovely trusting lady.

Evil evil cunt.

Purplepicnic · 23/02/2017 16:21

Life is always the sentence for murder but there is a minimum number of years to go with it.

The minimum is 30 but the judge can add more if he/she feels there are aggravating factors.

In this case, he cited the significant amount of pre planning and the financial motive as aggravating factors and made it 34 years minimum.

Fighterofthenightman · 23/02/2017 16:21

A standard life sentence without a minimum tariff usually means 15 years minimum before eligibility for applying for parole which may or may not be granted.

The life sentence is for natural life however, you may get out of prison but you'll have parole conditions for the rest of your life with possibility of recall to prison if you breach those conditions.

Fighterofthenightman · 23/02/2017 16:25

Minimum for life in the UK isn't 30 years, it usually averages around 15 unless otherwise factors. I know of someone given a life sentence fairly recently but minimum sentence set lower at 11 years 3 months.

Fighterofthenightman · 23/02/2017 16:26

As in minimum in custody, the life tariff in terms of parole etc will be for life.

TheWayYouLookTonight · 23/02/2017 16:27

I think only the Home Secretary can approve actual whole-life sentences with no possibility of parole?

Purplepicnic · 23/02/2017 16:28

It's minimum 30 years for certain types of murder such as those committed with firearms, those involving sexual conduct, multiple murders. One of those types of 'for personal gain' which is what applies to this case.

Sorry if I was unclear, it is complicated.

Fighterofthenightman · 23/02/2017 16:41

Purple - it is! And I think it should be too!

expatinscotland · 23/02/2017 16:43

Hope he rots in there and dies a painful, horrid death in there. Vile bastard.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 23/02/2017 16:44

Given his age, it's pretty likely he'll die in prison. Good.

StrongerSingle · 23/02/2017 16:45

Apparently his first wife died in 2001 (if I remember correctly). The police have said they may be looking into that too ... just in case there are any suspicious circumstances there.

specialsubject · 23/02/2017 16:48

He is 56 so with a minimum term of 34 years, it is unlikely that he will be released to kill again.

StrongerSingle · 23/02/2017 16:49

Sorry .. his first wife died in 2010, not 2001.

Original poster
KurriKurri · 23/02/2017 16:51

Yes a truly vile and evil man. Desperately awful for the family of his fiancee for her life to have been stolen in such a dreadful way.

OP posts:
flippinada · 23/02/2017 16:54

I was surprised and pleased he got such a hefty sentence. From what I've read it sounds like he deliberately targeted her when she was vulnerable - it's such a cruel crime.

morningconstitutional2017 · 23/02/2017 16:54

What a horrible, horrible case. Police are investigating the death of his first wife so if there was any foul play with that he'll spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Longdistance · 23/02/2017 16:57

His wife died in 2010. What a quick worker he was Hmm

Clawdy · 23/02/2017 16:58

Hopefully he will die behind bars anyway.

carabos · 23/02/2017 17:00

riversleep if there's "something dodgy " in his first wife's death then that will be dealt with entirely separately from this case and any sentence in relation to any finding in a case about that would be made on its own merit. There is no question of finding something dodgy and then just tacking a bit onto a sentence in another, unrelated crime. That's not how the criminal justice system works Hmm.