PC Harper killers sentenced

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

16 year and 13 year sentences.

I doubt they would have got much more if the murder charge had been successful.

I am glad to see the judge wasn’t convinced by their arguments.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46544144

It’s been a complex case. Two trials due to lockdown, one juror dismissed for knowing the defendant and families planning to intimidate the jurors.

The judges summing up is interesting, I read it that it should have been murder. Reading the summing up, I agree. There’s no way they didn’t know from their driving, and they certainly knew when they got to the a4.

Harper’s poor family and new wife. All of it is just harrowing.

I find it very doubtful that these will be model prisoners. To get out at the first possible date, you need to be. They will all end up with time added, I'd be surprised if they ended up doing much less than the actual sentence. I don't think the parole board will view their crime very kindly either and will be looking for an excuse...

To my mind they should have got longer, but I don't see them out in 8 years at all.

@DdraigGoch
Great username - the best flag in the world in my humble opinion (totally unbiased of course!)

I agree that petty criminals cause a huge amount of misery it was simply a response to the suggestion that they will leave prison as more sophisticated criminals. They will not. They are career petty criminals who have caused appalling misery and harm.

I do think it is time we took deaths more seriously.

The mantra of "they didn't set out that day to kill" should be countered (as a previous poster pointed out is the case in New Zealand) by a test of whether their behaviour was so reckless of the lives of others that it effectively constitutes consent.

I cannot see any way in which those convicted will ever play a part in normal society and whilst I don't believe no-one is beyond redemption, they really need to be inside for a very long period - ideally longer than the sentences they have received; not as a deterrent but in order to protect the rest of us.

Sorry consent above should read intent

Do they take into account the offenders attitude in court when sentencing? If not they should. An automatic extra year added if they laugh and mock the situation. If they won't show remorse then penalties for showing utter disrespect to the victim's family should be enforced.

The judge specifically referred to their lack of remorse in his sentencing remarks
“ I reject the contention that any of you has shown anything resembling remorse. The words you used when giving evidence about your concern for Andrew Harper’s family were made up. Bowers and Cole did not even plead guilty to manslaughter. Long’s approach was made very clear by what he said when charged with murder:-
“I don’t give a fuck about any of this.””

@Hingeandbracket entirely agree. Instead of directing criticism at the judge or at the poor people who had the misfortune to be summonsed for jury service, who had to act within the constraints of the legal system, people should be directing their anger towards the wrongs of the system itself.

These scum set out that day armed and prepared to use Violence. Even if the horrific events hadn’t killed PC Harper, the total disregard for any driver or pedestrian out that evening could easily have killed or maimed others. I agree one hundred percent with you, this should constitute intent. But it’s the law that’s the problem, not the people administering it.

But it’s the law that’s the problem, not the people administering it.
Yes and no - I agree the Judge and jury can only work with what they have, but a bit like the parole board in the Warboys case, Lawyers (and Judges who are lawyers anyway) get tied up in the system and don't notice when what they are doing is ludicrous.

What could they have done differently if the evidence presented by the prosecution didn’t meet the threshold for murder as the law currently stands?
There’s absolutely nothing to suggest they didn’t want to convict for murder, but they have to operate within current legislation, not what they might wish the law said

@Caelano

What could they have done differently if the evidence presented by the prosecution didn’t meet the threshold for murder as the law currently stands? There’s absolutely nothing to suggest they didn’t want to convict for murder, but they have to operate within current legislation, not what they might wish the law said

I don't disagree in this one case - but they ought to be lobbying for change, not making excuses (IMHO of course).

Agree they should be lobbying for change. I think they’re making an explanation rather than excuses.

Those saying they ‘knowingly’ killed a police officer and that at some point they knew they were dragging him and carried on, the jury who were the ones who heard all the evidence presented to them clearly didn’t agree. None of us have heard all the evidence of exactly how it happened, the lighting etc

However despicable these three are, the jury weren’t persuaded that they knew they were dragging poor PC Harper

That is why the conviction was manslaughter as for murder there needs to be the intention to kill or to cause really serious harm. If you don’t know you are dragging someone then you do not have that intention.

The fact you are a disgusting human being and didn’t care what danger you put other people in (which they certainly are), still doesn’t make it murder. It is manslaughter

The judge gave them the highest sentence he could for what they had been convicted of, without risking the sentence being overturned on appeal

RIP PC Harper.

@AllTheUserNamesAreTaken I agree that none of us heard all the evidence but it is difficult to understand how the jury could think that the driver, if not the 2 passengers, knew that they were dragging someone along.

The constant swerving would seem to indicate that the driver was trying to shake the PC off and the turning up of the radio would seem to indicate they were trying to drown out the noise of dragging, shouting, screaming or whatever.

They drove with no lights on in order to try and not be seen or followed and yet they had the radio on loud!

I am not sure what evidence could have persuaded the jury to find them guilty or murder

'Those saying they ‘knowingly’ killed a police officer and that at some point they knew they were dragging him and carried on, the jury who were the ones who heard all the evidence presented to them clearly didn’t agree. None of us have heard all the evidence of exactly how it happened, the lighting etc'

Oh come on, i would imagine many of us drive and cars aren't like tanks, something of this horrific magnitude would have been very apparent to the driver. The fact hat he said he didn't know, well so what! Offenders lie.

I wonder what those jurors thought of the extreme zigzagging driving, apparently to dislodge PC Harper, perhaps they thought that was a perfectly normal way to drive! afterall there wasnt any proof what they were doing..

I just hope they don't ever serve again.

I assume the jury weren’t sure the lads knew it was PC Harper rather than something else they were dragging.

We didn’t hear all the evidence - the jury did. They heard the legal directions from the judge and having done so they concluded they couldn’t be sure the defendants knew

Jurors take an oath that they will reach true verdicts according to the evidence. They also can only convict if they are ‘sure’. So not they think, or they believe, or most probably, but ‘sure’

I don't disagree in this one case - but they ought to be lobbying for change, not making excuses (IMHO of course).

The jury members aren't making excuses, are they? They're not allowed to talk about the case, after all. Which would also make it difficult for them to lobby.

@AllTheUserNamesAreTaken and @Pobblebonk excellent posts.

The jury clearly debated this long and hard (I think deliberations took two days?) and of course they can never disclose what went on in their discussions or they’d be in contempt of court.

As for knowing whether you are dragging something behind your car?

In my own familiar car, in daylight, driving calmly at a sensible speed on a smooth highway , I like to think I would know.

Driving an unfamiliar car (it seems this car was passed around various people) at Breakneck speed, music blaring, and probably all sorts of bumps and potholes as it was a country lane... honestly, I don’t know.

That was the call the jury had to make and it seems the prosecution were not able to put forward evidence that reached the threshold. After all, the defendants didn’t need to prove their innocence. It’s the prosecution which has to prove their guilt.

"I really do get that they didn't believe/couldn't understand that the evidence reached the threshold. My question is why."

It may simply have been because the jury felt intimidated, even if no overt threats were made

They are just ordinary members of the public and didn't volunteer to suffer the likely consequences of a murder verdict from the violent & large entwined criminal families

I read that the trial may be referred for investigation of possible interference with the jury

The jury members aren't making excuses, are they?
Sorry that was badly worded on my part - of course I meant the judiciary spend their time making excuses for why they cannot issue a proper sentence.

Didn’t the kid who admitted manslaughter give evidence that they zig-zagged to try and dislodge the PC?

'Driving an unfamiliar car (it seems this car was passed around various people) at Breakneck speed, music blaring, and probably all sorts of bumps and potholes as it was a country lane... honestly, I don’t know.'

Well that could have been clarified by reconstructing the scene using a 14stone 6 foot weight which would have proved even if a car was unfamiliar or not the driver would have been absolutely aware.

People are convicted of crimes like historic sex offences when it's one person's word against another, or convicted of murder when a body isn't ever found. This jury here were presented with facts but decided a 'we didn't know!' was believable Thank god the jury sitting on the Soham murders case didn't believe Huntley's defence when he said it was an accident and he hadn't meant to murder his victims either, afterall there wasn't any phone recordings with him admitting it..

Well that could have been clarified by reconstructing the scene using a 14stone 6 foot weight which would have proved even if a car was unfamiliar or not the driver would have been absolutely aware.

A heavy object isn't necessarily a person.

Thank god the jury sitting on the Soham murders case didn't believe Huntley's defence when he said it was an accident and he hadn't meant to murder his victims either, afterall there wasn't any phone recordings with him admitting it..

and thank god you are not sitting on any jury, ever, if you're prepared to declare people guilty beyond reasonable doubt without even sitting through the fucking trial.