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

As has been pointed out, one at least can't even begin to be considered for parole till 10.5 years have elapsed. I strongly suspect that none of these individuals will get parole easily unless they undergo pretty massive reform whilst inside.

At least there's no chance of them being able to pull the wool over the parole board's eyes, they clearly aren't intelligent enough for that.

People dismiss 10 years in prison as if it's a fleabite. Just think about all you have done in the last 10 years, or during your 20s - is it really that trivial? Would you really regard it as that easy to sacrifice all of that and instead spend 10 years sharing a small cell with a couple of thugs and a toilet?

Perhaps they should have thought about that.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat I don’t think anyone on here feels sympathy for these thugs; indeed many of us would happily see even tougher sentencing for certain situations. My own feeling is that these thugs put so many innocent lives in danger on a regular basis (burglary with weapons, driving recklessly etc) that the public should be protected for as long as possible. Even if the terrible events with PC harper hadn’t happened, so many other lives were put at risk that night- and it was clearly completely normalised behaviour for these thugs.

But I can still see that blaming the jurors is completely wrong. They can’t convict for murder unless there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, there wasn’t. That’s not their fault. Neither is it the judge’s fault that he has to act within sentencing guidelines. A few ignorant posters don’t seem to get that

@thedancingbear

But hey, why not bash innocent people doing jury service?

Quite. The juror-bashing on here is fucking appalling. I sincerely hope that none of the posters responsible ever have to sit on a jury in a case as harrowing as this. A relative of mine was called up to sit on the case of a serial paedophile and it completely fucked his mental health.

Back so soon? I thought you'd left after the childish pitchfork link. 'Have fun guys I'm flouncing' or something ..

But seeing as you're back, it isn't 'jury bashing' to question and criticise, stop being so dramatic. We are allowed different opinions you do know that?

25 years minimum would be good but our Sentences are appalling in UK. We are an absolute joke!!

@Pobblebonk

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.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean, @Hingeandbracket. You said "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". If your concern is that the law isn't being reformed quickly enough, that is the fault of law makers, not those who have to work with what the law actually is, rather than what it should be. You still haven't said what it is you expect the judge in this case to have done differently.

That makes two of us who didn't understand the post. Some clarification would be helpful.

@nicky7654
Have you compared sentencing in other countries and time served? The U.K. is not unusual in its approach.

I think it's a shame the jury weren't convinced, from reading the sentencing remarks the judge clearly had his doubts (and I'm being nice here) about how truthful the defendants were being when they said they didn't know the policeman was attached, and pointed out that the car slowed down after he became detached (but it could be from the car suddenly handling differently) and couldn't give (to the judge) a satisfactory answer as to why, so they knew something had changed at that point, although that could point to them knowing AT THAT POINT only and not while he was still being dragged.

I think the judge was right when he said it was an oversight not to do a test with a 90kg weight being dragged behind the car to see how it handles differently.

I had a Peugeot 207, not the same car at all, but it handled differently when it had 4 adults in it, so I imagine it would handle differently if it were dragging a weight as well.

I think a lot of us wish there had been enough evidence to make the murder conviction stick.

I'd like to know what evidence there could have been that showed the 3 did know they were dragging PC Harper along.

The Judge in his summing up literally said he didn't believe the 3 so therefore it should have been murder.

If they didn't have the radio blaring they would have heard his body bumping around and his shouts and screams. If the radio was blaring it suggests they turned it on to drown out the noises. Mind you they were driving with no lights in order not to be seen and yet may well have had the radio loud. I don't know about low intelligence, I would say more like thick as shit.

I think many people would have been quite happy to see the murder conviction stick, so I’ve no reason to think the jury wouldn’t have felt the same. If there isn’t the evidence, they can’t. Unless people honestly believe jury’s should make judgements on emotional instinct rather than facts

@lynsey91the medical evidence was that PC harper was knocked unconscious so there wouldn’t have been shouts and screams. I imagine handling a car at crazy speeds on twisty lanes with humps and probably pot holes is also quite different to driving at normal speed on a smooth highway

Murder no question. Absolute scum.

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

And thank fuck we have a criminal justice system where we have jurors who are impartial and have no connection with victims or defendants, and judges who can give them an impartial explanation of the law and the relevant legal tests for each category of offence.

Sitting in the jury of social media, is very different to sitting in the jury of an actual trial.

The jurors were informed of the law, of what 'beyond all reasonable doubt' actually means (an incredibly high burden of proof), and that the onus was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, not on the defence to prove the accused's innocence. They have sat through hours of evidence, by both sides.

I think it's highly probable that most jurors would have been biassed towards finding guilt, if they could, within the terms of their duty, the law as it was explained to them, and the evidence put in front of them. But it is an incredibly high threshold, and if there is a reasonable doubt, then a verdict of innocent must be found. And for murder over here, intent must be proven. It cannot be assumed.

Look these young men went equipped to rob someone’s quad bike. I’d hazard a guess that this wasn’t the first time. They were quite willing to burgle someone’s property, possibly using violence if they had too.
They didn’t give a shit about a young man losing his life in a horrible manner, nor would they have gave a fuck if they had killed a toddler whilst driving dangerously. Life obviously has little value to them.

Someone on here said a few pages ago that their sentence should’ve be able revenge, and that they shouldn’t have the key thrown away. Or something like that.
I’d personally be quite happy for these individuals to be locked up for life, human life is cheap to them anyway. These are not normal reasonable people.

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

Don't you think they deserve it though seriously? With everything that has been able to be reported do honestly think justice has been done?

Wrt the learning disabilities, this is what happens when it's cultural for cousins to regularly marry cousins. It's hardly surprising.

What a load of racist shit.

They went equipped to rob. Therefore, proving that they intended to rob, and did rob, is not hard to prove.

They didn't give a shit that someone lost their life. That is not what had to be proven, beyond all reasonable doubt. It had to be proven that they intended to cause PC Harper's death, as a result of their acts.

Their sentence has to be in line with what is allowed with what is proven beyond reasonable doubt in line with the law.

Not what one thinks it should be, what one should like it to be, but what it actually is.

Don't you think they deserve it though seriously?

What, you want to execute people in case they murdered someone, even though we're not 100% what happened?

What the actual fuck?

@TopBitchoftheWitches

I completely agree.

I didn't know this poor man but reading about his death was deeply disturbed.
Couldn't read it again.

His poor family and wife, knowing his last moments, knowing all the details.
Will they ever know peace again? I doubt it.
Deeply upsetting.

I too believe it was murder, but I accept the court and the judge's ruling.

Thank goodness they have been given a decent amount of years, but nothing is enough for what they did to that poor lad.

A truly sickening case, in a world with so many sickening cases.

He had such a lovely face and smile. RIP.

@ConstanceSalinger

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Or to not go to school.

@Hearwego I actually agree with a lot of what you say and I wrote a long post a while back about how I think in circumstances where the habitual Behaviour of the defendants shows no regard for others, then perhaps life sentences meaning life would be appropriate. These thugs risked the lives of anyone out and about that night — and the key thing is, that was normalised behaviour for them, so it’s only a matter of chance that they hadn’t killed or maimed before.

It’s important to make the distinction between that, and murder though. If it can’t be proved that they committed murder then quite rightly a Manslaughter conviction is the right one.

I think if life (meaning life) sentences for manslaughter were used, it would be important to that it were only applied in this sort of circumstance, where it wasn’t a one- off, it’s habitual behaviour which could have seriously injured or killed people on numerous occasions. As I said in my pp it’s actually a matter of public protection, not revenge.