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

[KurriKurri]

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.

Theway - my understanding is that the home secretary doesn't approve a whole life tariff - a Judge gives a whole life tariff but that can only be overturned by the home secretary or a high European Court.

The confusion came in when home secs retrospectively imposed whole life tariffs when a Judge had previously given a minimum term - Myra Hindley for example.

Judge's reasons for the sentence can be read in full here:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/r-v-ian-stewart-sentencing.pdf

In effect he has been given a whole life tariff. Statistics seem to suggests that adults being sentence to life imprisonment die in average 20 years earlier than their peers of the same age.

And Ian Stewart is not in the best of health.

Although judging by his actions on April 11th last year he was in far better health than he suggested to people. Murdered Helen, disposed of her body, went to the tip (twice), went into the solicitors and then to a bowls match his son was playing in. After all that he even managed a takeaway on the way home. Very fit and active for such an unwell man.

Hopefully he'll die behind bars and sooner rather than later as scum like him are a waste if tax payers money.

I'm no expert but I think the extra-special life ones like Huntley and Whiting got, where you're literally never coming out and there's no point asking, are for people who murder strangers and/or children for kicks. They remain a risk to the public forevermore.

Someone who murders a spouse for money is, yes, an absolute monster but legally I don't think they can treat them the same as a nutjob who murders strangers/children for fun.

However, legally, you can still give them a sentence so long they die in prison anyway.

I think.

Horrible man and glad he's finally been caught and punished

HELEN was a lovely woman and loved by many on way (including myself)

But to the person who said about wife dying and moving on quickly - please don't judge you don't know how you will feel if a partner died

My husband died in 2011 (think around same time as Helen's) and I met my current df 11mths later

Such a tragic and gruesome case.

Not only did his wife die, but Helen Bailey's husband drowned while they were on hols in 2011

Then they met and look what happened.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/03/i-was-wearing-a-bikini-when-he-died-the-absurdity-of-it

Evil bastard, may he wrot in hell.

I don't understand though why he was allowed to refuse to appear on a video link? And why he wasn't required to be in court in person?

Totally agree wannabe he should have been made to be there in person. Fucking bastard

Carabos I meant that when his parole hearing comes up, if hes subsequently convicted of killing his first wife, he will not get parole, not that they would tack a sentence on! We were talking about parole, and I know exactly how the criminal justice system works.

His first wife was cremated, so it would be hard to prove if he'd caused her death. How terrible for his sons to know that their father could have also killed their mother.

You can't be made to give evidence.

blondes the difference is that you didn't move on with potentially malicious intent which he may well have done.

They should be made to be there. Levi Bellfield did the same, it's disgusting.

Re life sentences. Only 70 people have whole life sentences including Rose West, Dale Cregan and Ian Brady. Even Roy Whiting and Ian Huntley got minimum years, 40 each. But they're on licence after release and can be recalled to prison at any time.

Short of carrying them in which puts staff at risk and would make a farce of the court there's no way of making them attend.

You can't be made to give evidence. One can only make assumptions as to why he didn't appear or give evidence, although the prosecution can not allude to that.

He did take the stand (probably to the despair of his Defence team), where he spun his risible pack of pre-planned lies. It was the sentencing and the judge's remarks on it that he refused to appear for, despicable coward that he is.

On the Jeremy Vine Radio 2 show today from 1pm, they are discussing if people in Ian Stewart's position should be allowed to refuse to give evidence.

In practice, there's no way of forcing people to give evidence if they don't want to. The issue is simply whether you want to drag them in there to refuse to say anything or not. You can of course draw inferences from any refusal, that's viable.

I don't personally think their presence is so important either when refusing to give evidence or when being sentenced that it merits the use of resources and the risk to the physical safety of the people doing the moving. Fuck em. Who cares? The trial and sentencing will go on whether they want to engage or not.

He did take the stand (probably to the despair of his Defence team), where he spun his risible pack of pre-planned lies. It was the sentencing and the judge's remarks on it that he refused to appear for, despicable coward that he is.

^this

He was happy enough to participate when it was to tell His Story, but having been thoroughly found out, he didn't want to play anymore. Thankfully he's not allowed to take his ball and go home, and the psychopath will not get the chance to plot anything like this ever again.