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

I think feelings are running high, as PC Harper had married his childhood sweetheart 4 weeks before, and he was obviously so well loved. So a rational debate was never going to be likely on here.

FWIW, I think the verdict was always going to be manslaughter, as the case for murder couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and because of the learning difficulties of the defendants.

The judge gave as severe sentences as he could, so as to avoid as far as possible the risk of them winning an appeal.

'But this is the kind of shit we are up against unfortunately'

It really isn't. Over 400 posts and you pick 2 offensive comments one of which I believe was deleted if not both.

The 'kind of shit' you're up against is many not caring if they were illiterate or had a hard upbringing etc etc etc. Many people do not believe they didn't know what they were doing even if the jury believed their story, that is all. No 'stringing up', executions requested. Just it should have been a murder conviction based on the facts with severe sentences that reflect their horrific crime.

Many people do not believe they didn't know what they were doing even if the jury believed their story, that is all. No 'stringing up', executions requested. Just it should have been a murder conviction based on the facts with severe sentences that reflect their horrific crime.

Fine,. FWIW, I don't believe them, on balance, either. But we can't convict people of murder unless we're sure (that's what 'beyond reasonable doubt' means; it's different from 'reasonably beyond doubt' which is how it's often misunderstood). What do you want to happen now?

many not caring if they were illiterate or had a hard upbringing etc etc etc

Okay but you must recognise (i) we can't address the causes of this kind of behaviour without at least trying to understand it and (ii) once we recognise that there's more to these people's behaviour than 'because they're scum' that might have a bearing on how the courts deal with them?

@thedancingbear Figure of speech, as i have said on more than two occasions i am against the death penalty.
I've also said that early intervention is essential to prevent crime, you just focus on what you want to hear though :(

But change is difficult, if not impossible when the people involved take no responsibility for their actions.

@Pobblebonk You don't know that all, Warboys would have been released had new offenses not been bought forward.
the PB have released plenty of people after a min term.

I just happen to think the sentences are far too lenient and the focus just seems to always be on the killers and never the victim or the family they leave behind.

It should never be forgotten that he ran to danger, suffered a horrendous death and this is how society has dealt with his killers, 10 years!
As tragic as it is, his marital status shouldn't come into it.

A young man died whilst trying to stop thieves taking a quad bike. No theft is worth a human being losing their life, it’s all so very tragic.
The police get knocked an awful lot, but this case just shows that they put themselves in harms way.
I was on YouTube today and saw some videos of police officers being filmed, some of the comments were disgusting. I hope society really doesn’t wish harm on the police.

@Pobblebonk You don't know that all, Warboys would have been released had new offenses not been bought forward.
the PB have released plenty of people after a min term.

I didn't claim to "know" - on the contrary, I specifically used the word "suspect". I simply pointed out that the people who do claim to know that these people will be automatically released at the earliest possible opportunity don't seem to understand the system.

The Parole Board has refused to release plenty of people after a minimum term. And systems have been changed since the Worboys case.

The Parole Board has refused to release plenty of people after a minimum term. And systems have been changed since the Worboys case.**

And quite right to. I’ve read about lots of people who have been released from prison only to murder again. The parole board should be accountable m. If they want to release someone and that person re -offends , I think some responsibility must lay with them.
Worboys a good example. The parole board are often faceless and nameless , meaning that they can make decisions, sometimes wrongly and it’s totally confidential. They are public servants paid by the tax payer and should be accountable. Their job is to protect the public.
And by the way I’m not saying that everyone out on parole reoffends. But here have been some infamous cases when clearly people shouldn’t come out.
For example , a man who battered a pensioner to death in her home. Went to jail, came out then killed someone else! Madness.

It’s not about revenge, but I welcome the debate about more effective (which quite possibly might involve longer) sentences.
It’s about protecting the public.

I know pp have said you can only convict people on what they’ve done, not what they might do. But think about groups of people who routinely Set out armed with weapons to steal from people’s homes and will drive utterly recklessly to evade the police. Or People who regularly drink/drug drive.

My point is, anyone doing the above shows an equal disregard for human life as these defendants did. In this one off case an extraordinary set of tragic circumstances - PC Harper becoming caught up in the ripe- led to a death. But actually anyone doing the above things is putting many others’ lives at risk on a regular basis and it’s pure luck if no one dies or gets maimed.

I wish there could be an overhaul of legislation around these types of offences - not just when they tragically result in someone’s death because that’s shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. IMO anyone routinely behaving like this is wilfully endangering human life as a matter of routine and the public deserve protection from this sort of behaviour.

Let’s face it- there are bound to be others who could have been standing where the defendants are now... career criminals who think nothing of Going and burgling people’s houses While armed with knives or clubs. People who drive recklessly under the influence of drugs or drink.

The ‘3 strikes and out’ model clearly isn’t right, but there’s no logical reason why a variation of this wouldn’t work. People have a right to feel safe in their daily life, not to be at risk driving or walking home in the evening from thugs who speed recklessly along country lanes, or at risk from armed thugs turning up to steal their car or other property.

Even if PC Harper hadnt been killed the thugs could so easily have killed another driver or pedestrian while tearing through the country lanes. Yet If that evening they’d managed to escape the police without killing or maiming Anyone, it wouldn’t even make the news- it would just be another quad bike theft and an insurance claim for the owner.

IMO one of the most useful judicial reforms that could happen would be recognition of the fact that morally, there isn’t a huge leap between someone who regularly endangers others’ lives but by pure luck never harms anyone, and someone who regularly endangers others’ lives but one day ends up killing or maiming someone.

IMO one of the most useful judicial reforms that could happen would be recognition of the fact that morally, there isn’t a huge leap between someone who regularly endangers others’ lives but by pure luck never harms anyone, and someone who regularly endangers others’ lives but one day ends up killing or maiming someone.

I think this is a great post, and the above suggestion is really interesting. Without sounding like a dick it raises all kinds of philosophical questions: do we judge an action by the person's intent; its possible consequences; or its actual consequences? Or a combination of all three? I think the current answer is the last of these and I suppose what you're ultimately suggesting is a rebalancing of the different factors.

I think the difficulty is this: if you place more emphasis on potential consequences (so ultimately you remove Harper's killers from society based on a pattern of behaviour) then obviously that entails much harsher sentences for drink-driving, serial burglary, carrying a knife etc.

We might decide this is fine in isolation but then what is the system meant to do when it comes across something like the Harper case? Lock them up for even longer? Arguably, all we've really done is increase sentencing; we already have a creaking prison system, there's little evidence this would prove a deterrent and it's already the case that few civilised countries lock as many people up for as long as we do.

Or, you could moderate the sentences of the likes of the Harper killers based on intent and potential outcomes being more important than actual ones. But that would go down like a ton of shit for obvious reasons, and I don't think it would be right. People would argue that they have got similar sentences to their uncle Derek who was caught driving just over the limit.

My last reservation is that placing emphasis on what people might do as opposed to what they have done, is that it places too much power in the hands of a judiciary and a police force which has unfortunately demonstrated huge capacity for prejudice over the years. The travellers going round nicking quad bikes are likely to get a much harsher treatment than the businessman tearing about half-cut in his Jag. Focussing on actual consequences rather than potential ones has something going for it in terms of transparency and objectivity I feel.

I'd just like to add that release from prison does not mean release from serving your sentence.

Two of the people responsible for Baby P's death have been released and then gone back to prison for breaching parole.

'one of the most useful judicial reforms that could happen would be recognition of the fact that morally, there isn’t a huge leap between someone who regularly endangers others’ lives but by pure luck never harms anyone, and someone who regularly endangers others’ lives but one day ends up killing or maiming someone.'

Completely disagree, as bear said many activities could be deemed as regularly endangering life. I don't think prisons have capacity to lock up every criminal just in case they kill someone.

Imo jurors shouldn't be randomly selected, there should be some kind of process clarifying their basic comprehension. Or, in a case like this the jurors should be a neutral panel of legal professionals. A bit like when there is a PIP tribunal and the panel isn't made up of Beryl from down the street types but health care and legal professionals who actually understand the evidence they are presented with. Do all countries use juries? I'll have to Google..

There aren’t simple answers- if there were, we’d have them by now! But a key point in my post was ‘more effective sentencing. That doesn’t necessarily mean sticking people in prison for longer, though realistically it probably does mean curbing their freedom in some form, whether that’s some sort of surveillance or restrictions on their behaviour... which of course raises a whole host of questions about civil liberties!

I suppose at the heart of my thinking is public protection. Making society a safer place for all of us. Which IMO means tackling the sort of day to day behaviour which makes life unsafe for innocent people even when it doesn’t Result in death or injury.

I think in some respects we’re already moving in the right direction. Sentencing for drink driving for example is much more severe than used to be the case. I remember when I was a child (1960s/70s) drink driving didn’t have the severe social stigma it has now either. And sentencing for manslaughter was made more severe a few years ago in reforms.

I still think more could be done though. Some of the posts here and on other threads are from people who live near where this Terrible event happened and have talked about other crimes committed by the group these defendants were associated with. The common theme was that these people were a nightmare, routinely making people’s lives a misery, career criminals yet seemingly untouchable. Surely as a society we’ve got to at least look again at why this is tolerated in a civilised society?

Imo jurors shouldn't be randomly selected, there should be some kind of process clarifying their basic comprehension. Or, in a case like this the jurors should be a neutral panel of legal professionals.

Right, so you'd rig the legal system to get the outcome that you think is correct in the Harper case.

Does anyone have any suggestions that don't involve a Tardis, and/or moving the mountain to Mohammed?

I have the sense that many people in criminal law consider the jury system one of the least worst aspects. Selecting jurors based on their 'suitability' or using panels of 'professionals' would be open to all kinds of abuses and pressures from politicians, the police, the press. A neutral jury of 12 peers, however flawed, at least ensures some kind of systemic separation and democratic accountability.

do we judge an action by the person's intent; its possible consequences; or its actual consequences? Or a combination of all three?

Agree @thedancingbear it should be a combination of all three.

Take two groups of people. Group 1 go out thieving and regularly drive recklessly. There could have been many near misses but by a stroke of fortune they haven’t killed anyone . Group 2 behave in exactly the same way but one night knock someone down.

There is equal disregard for others’ lives in the groups. Equal intent to commit a crime and escape, however dangerously that means they will behave.

Morally, and In terms of safeguarding the lives of the public, There isn’t a massive leap between the two groups

I think there is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting society from career criminals and civil liberties. I am assuming no one on this thread is a career criminal! so further intrusions on to the civil liberties of those who are might seem benign and reasonable. There was a lot of discomfort about the use of judge only “Diplock” courts in NI.
To use lockdown as a parallel hard circumstances have given rise to a massive loss of civil liberties and an increase in state control. You have people demanding further restrictions without thinking about what they are giving up because they are only looking at the immediate situation.

The same is true with the response to horrific cases like this. What happened was unusual and rare so we shouldn’t make substantial changes to our rights because of it.

‘ What happened was unusual and rare so we shouldn’t make substantial changes to our rights because of it.‘

I know what you mean, but I don’t see it as making changes because of it.
Inevitably when there’s a high profile case, it sharpens people’s’ focus and gets them debating important topics. It doesn’t mean any resulting changes are simply because of the high profile case. The topic is worthy of discussion and consideration and potential changes anyway.

Civil liberty is a massively important principle and I’m not underestimating that. But actually the lockdown parallel is quite a good example isn’t it? There are restrictions which people haven’t chosen, would prefer not to have but which are for the greater good, not to satisfy individual desires

The difference I see with lockdown is that people expect it to be time limited. What we all should be carefully watching is if any restrictions are retained beyond when they are strictly necessary.
I agree that cases like this can act as a catalyst for discussions about issues that have been developing for some time. I respect parents right to homeschool etc but the ability of some children to drop out of the system or be removed by their parents is a wider issue that needs addressing. I think it is probably relevant to issues like county lines as well.

So does anyone here actually think justice has been served in a meaningful way
I'm sure it doesn't feel like that to the deceased man's widow, his family and friends. It doesn't feel to me that justice has been done. I realise the judge was restrained by the ridiculously lenient sentencing guidelines but doesnt that suggest that the guidelines need review and reform. How can any of us have any confidence in a justice system which is so obviously broken. Any reasonable person could look at those sentences and be thoroughly disgusted. Was that all that taking a mans life is worth to the courts.

^So does anyone here actually think justice has been served in a meaningful way
I'm sure it doesn't feel like that to the deceased man's widow, his family and friends. It doesn't feel to me that justice has been done. I realise the judge was restrained by the ridiculously lenient sentencing guidelines but doesnt that suggest that the guidelines need review and reform. How can any of us have any confidence in a justice system which is so obviously broken. Any reasonable person could look at those sentences and be thoroughly disgusted. Was that all that taking a mans life is worth to the courts.^

It depends what you mean by 'whether justice has been served'. Do I think, based on what I've read (none of us of course sat through the full trial), that PC Harper was murdered? I suspect more likely than not, but you can't find people guilty of murder unless you're sure. If they did murder him, then they deserve tougher sentences, but I also understand why they weren't given them. And I think that has to be right.

Do I think the sentences for manslaughter - accidentally killing someone - are about right? They've all been locked up for more than 10 years and will serve most or all of that, which is a pretty strong punishment by the standards of any civilised country.

In what way do you think the system is 'broken' TeaLibrary? What different would you have liked to see happen here?

I'm sure it doesn't feel like that to the deceased man's widow, his family and friends. It doesn't feel to me that justice has been done

I'm sure you're right. If I was in their shoes I'd want them strung from the nearest tree, and I also know I wouldn't feel much better after that. The point is that no punishment will bring Harper back or compensate for what's happened, and a civilised justice system doesn't try to do that. And it's also why the courts not the victim or their family decide the punishment.

I dont think the sentencing guidelines are hard enough on defendants convicted of manslaughter. I would advocate for harsher sentencing. It might then feel like more than a slap on the wrist. Its really hard to feel that justice has been served when you see defendants like these openly laughing about what they had done. They had no respect for the law and no respect for the agony of the dead man's widow and family. You shouldn't be able to kill someone and then walk out of jail like these defendants will, probably about halfway through their sentences.

How on earth is 10 years plus in prison a "slap on the wrist"?

Compared to to the life sentence that PC Harpers widow now has to live with, this is a slap on the wrist. I really feel strongly about defendants who have killed people.

The time served will be ten years for one offender, eight for the other two, hardly seems commensurate with the crime does it?

But it will be defended as we all live in a "civilised society"! well some of us do, others don't and civilised punishments don't work on these people, they need uncivilised punishments and a life sentence with a min term served of 25 years would soon wipe the smirk of their grinning faces.

Anyone who thinks 10 years is a suitable punishment should ask themselves "what will he do when he comes out?" Perhaps become a counsellor ? or work in adult social care? OR go back to to being a thieving piece of scum only getting his 25 years when he inevitably murders some other poor victim?

We don't live in Scandinavia, don't have a criminal system based on rehabilitation and we won't be getting that anytime soon, so we have to lock these people away, if only to protect ourselves.

The time served will be ten years for one offender, eight for the other two, hardly seems commensurate with the crime does it?

Only if they get parole on first application, which isn't particularly likely. Bear in mind too that if they do get parole they will only be out on licence and can be recalled immediately if they put a foot wrong.