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

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?

Why is only up to "legal apparatchiks"? They have no greater say in legislation than anyone else who is not an MP.

And, once again, the requirement to follow the law isn't an "excuse", it's a simple fact. This judge had to follow the guidance; it wasn't open to him to say "I think the current law is unsatisfactory, therefore I'm going to postpone sentencing in the hope that with any luck Parliament will decide to pass new legislation with retrospective effect that will help me out."

And, once again, the requirement to follow the law isn't an "excuse", it's a simple fact. This judge had to follow the guidance; it wasn't open to him to say "I think the current law is unsatisfactory, therefore I'm going to postpone sentencing in the hope that with any luck Parliament will decide to pass new legislation with retrospective effect that will help me out."

and "once agian" that isn't what I said.

@Hingeandbracket, you said that "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". The reasons given as to why they can't do a "better job" all come down to the fact that they have to comply with the law. So if you are referring to something other than that that is being given as an excuse, what is it?

I think you understand full well what I mean - and I've outlined that I prefer the NZ version of the law.
We are far too slow to reform in this country in my view.
At no point have I despite your repeated strawman attempts suggested they should do anything other than comply with current law - of course that way madness lies.
It is frustrating that the legal profession seem to regard "but that's the law" as an excuse for nothing ever changing.

@Caelano
@ChazsBrilliantAttitude
There was no music blaring as they left the scene

@Bigyellowsunshine
The point about reasonable doubt is that they say the turned up the music and driving with loud music is consistent with their earlier behaviour. Consequently they can claim they habitually drive with loud music playing.

The legal profession have no issue with the law changing but laws are a matter for parliament.

Judges can only apply the law as it is. If you want the law to change lobby your MP. The constitutional separation of powers has to be respected.

[quote Bigyellowsunshine]@Caelano
@ChazsBrilliantAttitude
There was no music blaring as they left the scene[/quote]
I thought I'd read in the press coverage that one of the little shits, possibly the driver, admitted to turning the music up 'to help him concentrate'

I don’t know how the hell anyone on here thinks they can possibly know whether there was music playing during the drive or not!

Yes it was in the judges summing up they left the scene with music blaring.

Presumably to hide the horrific noises from behind

These people showed the true depth of their inhumanity not just by killing the officer, but by their behaviour during the trial. They really are vermin.

^Quite. No one would disagree with this. But that doesn't make it right to slag off the jury for the verdict. We weren't in court to hear the evidence.

It was so awful to think of his wife, though, so tragic.

@EvilPea are you sure about that? Can you provide a link?

@Caelano

I don’t know how the hell anyone on here thinks they can possibly know whether there was music playing during the drive or not!

Yet you seem quite sure they were.

@Caelano

I don’t know how the hell anyone on here thinks they can possibly know whether there was music playing during the drive or not!

I said I thought I'd heard they'd admitted it but even if they did who knows whether it's true. If any of them said that water's wet you'd have to check

Not at all. None of us know. If you actually read my post I said that in an unfamiliar car driving at breakneck speed along narrow, uneven lanes in the with music blaring then I can’t possibly say whether I would be aware of dragging something.

That’s what I actually wrote.

This was the point which The case hinged on. the prosecution couldn’t Prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew which is why a manslaughter verdict rather than murder was given

The constitutional separation of powers has to be respected.

Fucking hell, I think you're wasting your breath trying to explain that one to some of the PPs.

Yes it was in the judges summing up they left the scene with music blaring. Presumably to hide the horrific noises from behind

The problem is, evilpea, that a civilised system of justice can't find people guilty of murder based on presumptions.

Again, however, I expect I'm wasting my breath. Some people want to see them strung up and that's the end of it. Their entitled to that view but thank fuck we don't live in a country that gives it any credence.

[quote Bigyellowsunshine]@EvilPea are you sure about that? Can you provide a link?[/quote]
I think the judges summing up was linked up thread.
I’m sure it was in there.
They drove through the village with music blaring the day they went to steal the quad the first time, but it was also remarked they did it during the fateful getaway.

Sounds fair enough EvilPea. How are you proving why they turned the music up on the second occasion?

'This was the point which The case hinged on. the prosecution couldn’t Prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew which is why a manslaughter verdict rather than murder was given'

You keep saying this and I keep replying that in most crimes the offenders always say they didn't know/didn't mean it and the jury have to decide if they believe that after looking at the glaring facts presented. There's a case in the paper today of Wesley Streepe who said he didn't mean to murder his victim and his arm across her neck was accidental during rough sex. Fortunately that jury didn't fall for it and he's been convicted of murder.

Regarding the music, well yes of course they allegedly wouldn't have heard PC Harper shouting but surely far more obvious would be the lurching of the car as horrifically the weight of him would have caused the car to lurch excessively. Apparently though that would been completely normal to some posters here in an unfamiliar car! God knows why.

'Again, however, I expect I'm wasting my breath. Some people want to see them strung up and that's the end of it'

No, not 'strung up', just convicted of murder or given maximum manslaughter sentences. HTH.

Some people want to see them strung up and that's the end of it. Their entitled to that view but thank fuck we don't live in a country that gives it any credence

No, we live a country that thinks dragging a human being to a horrific death is worthy of derisory sentences.
None will serve more than 10 years, probably less, so all free in their mid 20s, to continue their worthless lives.

A gang of armed robbers got between 10 and 13 years in 2013, no one killed, no lives ruined to the extent that PC Harpers family have had theirs destroyed.

I'm not an advocate of the death penalty but cases like this one makes me think that perhaps we've got it wrong.

The driver isn’t eligible to apply for parole before 10 years 8 months.

The judge was very clear that if they were a few years older the sentences would have been longer. The driver had already pleaded guilty to manslaughter so that had to be taken into account.

The driver’s evidence about the music was that the other occupants of the car were giving him conflicting driving instructions so he told them to put the music on to drown them out. He was driving at extreme speed so would have been concentrating on the road. This is plausible even if you don’t believe it.

Still out in his late 20s.
What the judge would have done if they'd been older is irrelevant, they aren't.

As far as i can see there is zero deterrent in the sentencing and i doubt very much their will be much rehabilitation either, their lack of remorse or cooperation speaks volumes doesn't it?

As far as i can see there is zero deterrent in the sentencing

How does losing the best years of your life behind bars - up to 14 years - constitute zero deterrent?

and i doubt very much their will be much rehabilitation either, their lack of remorse or cooperation speaks volumes doesn't it?

You're basing this very strong view on what should happen to these people's lives based on what you've read in the Daily Mail. Do you see the problem with that?

No, not 'strung up', just convicted of murder or given maximum manslaughter sentences. HTH.

They weren't convicted of murder because the jury decided that the case wasn't made out beyond reasonable doubt. Do you know better than the jury, despite having not sat through all the evidence?

They weren't given maximum manslaughter sentences because they were teenagers with learning difficulties. Would you prefer a judicial system that doesn't take these kinds of things into account?