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

'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.'

His family and friends sat through 'the fucking trial' and have called for a retrial. I think they paid attention to the evidence, don't you?

There is a petition, there is widespread public outrage. It isn't just me getting my legal facts all in a muddle you know. Murderers rarely if ever say yep i knew what I was doing and I did it anyway.

His family and friends sat through 'the fucking trial' and have called for a retrial

2 trials thanks to covid, they’ve had to sit through two trials.

His family and friends sat through 'the fucking trial' and have called for a retrial. I think they paid attention to the evidence, don't you?

I expect they did. But they are not neutral. Do you really think people should be automatically convicted because the family of the victim think they are guilty? If no, then what's your point?

What purpose would a retrial serve? Given their ages and learning difficulties, it is possible that their sentences wouldn’t change by a great amount. They are too young for the whole life term to firm the starting point.

form

@Hingeandbracket

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.

But, again, they aren't excuses. They are bound by the sentencing guidelines. If they ignore them they had the accused an instant appeal which is bound to succeed. What purpose would that serve?

His family and friends sat through 'the fucking trial' and have called for a retrial. I think they paid attention to the evidence, don't you

I'm quite sure if I sat through the trial of someone responsible for killing my husband, I'd be desperate for them to be found guilty of murder and to receive the highest punishment possible. But that doesn't mean that I would be right, because I would hardly be in the best position to weigh the evidence dispassionately and work out whether it reached the requisite level of proof.

The petition and widespread public outrage are complerely irrelevant. If any of the friends and relatives who sat through the trial has identified a viable legal basis for a retrial other than not liking the outcome, and for all I know one of them could be a criminal law expert, more power to them.

Exactly @Pobblebonk

If it were my husband or child who was the victim I would want a murder conviction and would no doubt wish all sorts of evils on the perpetrators. That’s not the point though.
The point is whether the prosecution put forward evidence that reached the threshold.

I’m still that anyone can think they know better than the forensic experts and specialists in reconstructions that it would be ‘obvious’ that the car was dragging a body. I have absolutely no clue whether i would know, driving a car that didn’t belong to me, at furious speeds along bumpy, bendy narrow country lanes in the dark, music blaring. And Given that shortly before, the car had been towing a quad bike weighing well over 30 stone plus a man, I imagine it might be more difficult to know.

It doesn’t mean any of us who are pointing out the facts are defending the perpetrators at all. Quite the opposite. They’re scum.

I've seen today that the sentences are being referred to the Attorney General as unduly lenient

Good.

Good!

Fingers crossed justice prevails. The evidence heard in that trial devastated me. I cannot imagine what it did to the family.

Unfortunately their conduct in court was disgraceful, laughing and joking. However I suspect a lot of this is bravado.

I believe they will serve two thirds of their sentence won’t they? Not the whole sentence. Manslaughter can carry a life sentence by the way, not limited to a set tariff.
The judge could have given them longer.

It’s true that Manslaughter can carry a life sentence (though the judge would still set a tariff.) However I’m not sure whether in this case the judge could have done that, within the sentencing guidelines? The guidelines state certain factors (age of defendants etc) which impact on the sentencing.

It’s good that Manslaughter sentencing now is generally way more severe than even a few years ago. In the past, the average sentence was something pitiful like 3 years whereas now much longer sentences of ten or more years are quite common.

Having said that I’ve no doubt many of us would gladly see these thugs put away for as much of their lives as possible

Having said that I’ve no doubt many of us would gladly see these thugs put away for as much of their lives as possible

I can see why you'd say this but I'm not sure I'd agree. They weren't actually convicted of murder so there is clearly reasonable doubt as to what happened. Also they were teenagers with little (moral or academic) education, and learning difficulties.

Obviously what they did was terrible and they deserve their punishment. But locking them up and throwing away the key would be revenge not justice.

[quote Caelano]**@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.[/quote]
There was no music blaring. That was a lie. They definitely knew

@Bigyellowsunshine how do you know there was no music?
And as for ‘they definitely knew’ - no, the whole point of the verdict is that it was impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew

They had been witnessed driving towards the scene of the crime with music blaring so it is hard to disprove that they didn’t turn the music up.

@thedancingbear I can see where you’re coming from but in this specific case I believe it’s about protecting the public, not revenge.

What’s not in dispute at all is that these were habitual criminals who had no regard for others’ lives. Theft was clearly a way of life for them, and they turned up at the property where they had planned the quad bike theft armed with weapons. Even if the terrible event with PC Harper had not happened, it was purely a matter of chance that other drivers or pedestrians weren’t killed or maimed - these thugs were driving at crazy speeds with lights off along winding narrow lanes. What is undeniable is that this was completely normalised behaviour for them... if they realised the police were on to them, they would drive at reckless speeds to escape.

So yes, I’m aware that they had little education either formal or morally from their families, and yes they were teenagers. But this wasn’t a one- off situation (apart from the terrible consequence this time)
Sentences of this length or life for manslaughter are exceptionally rare but for the reasons I’ve given, I think this is a case where locking them up for even longer is justified.

I think it’s in some ways a watershed moment. It should send out the message that even if you don’t set out planning to kill someone, if your habitual normalised behaviour puts the innocent public at danger then it’s entirely reasonable that the public are protected

But, again, they aren't excuses. They are bound by the sentencing guidelines. If they ignore them they had the accused an instant appeal which is bound to succeed. What purpose would that serve?
I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse.
Can you point out the bit where I suggested anyone should ignore the sentencing guidelines? No you can't because I didn't.
The point I ma making is that after every case like this the legal apparatchiks set forth with a sea of excuses about why they can't do a better job. How about them asking for some changes so this gets addressed the next time?

"I think it’s in some ways a watershed moment. It should send out the message that even if you don’t set out planning to kill someone, if your habitual normalised behaviour puts the innocent public at danger then it’s entirely reasonable that the public are protected"
I totally agree as stated upthread.

I agree it was impossible to prove beyond a reasonable amount these scum knew the PC was there.
That doesn't mean they didn't, and for the question to hinge on that highlights the weakness in our system vs, say New Zealand.
Once they started off doing the shit they were doing that night, anyone can see it was highly likely an innocent person would die and the rest of us need to be protected from that as far as possible.

Some people seem to be forgetting - this wasn't a few teenagers having a jolly. They were caught red-handed stealing and tried to get away at all costs - one of which was a man's life.

@Hingeandbracket

Some people seem to be forgetting - this wasn't a few teenagers having a jolly. They were caught red-handed stealing and tried to get away at all costs - one of which was a man's life.

Not sure why you think anyone is forgetting this - I haven't noticed any posts suggesting this was teenagers having a jolly day out. The fact remains that the jury didn't think murder was proved.