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

@RunningFromInsanity
I agree that you don’t need an education to know that. However, a car going at 60 mph will cover a mile in one minute. The driver will claim he was concentrating on driving and the two passengers have learning difficulties. It is clear how a reasonable doubt might have been created. I am not saying I believe them but I can’t prove they actually knew they were dragging PC Harper.

@Ostagazuzulum

It must be particularly terrible to see this case as a police officer. I do agree that it raises serious questions about the pressure the police are under.

@RiverMeadow

@FarTooSkinny I must say I am glad I live in a country where if I am ever accused of a crime I will be tried in a court of law that is open to the public and not by a baying mob on the internet

I have no idea what you're getting at here. 'If I'm ever accused of a crime' these guys aren't accused, they have done the crime. They have murdered a man!! I think people speaking about it over the internet is the least of anyone's worries. What a ridiculous thing to say!

Why is that a ridiculous thing to say? Plenty of post on this thread wanting mob justice.

Although it could not be proved that they knew PC Harper was being dragged along by their car, I find it extremely unlikely that they didn't know.

The fact that the driver was swerving as though to try and shake him off would really indicate that he knew. Also were they all deaf that they didn't hear his shouts or screams or the noise of his body being dragged along the ground?

If you read the judge’s sentencing remarks h wasn’t convinced either.

he

Judge on the murder charge:-
“The jury were not sure that Henry Long knew that as he was driving from Admoor Lane to Ufton Lane the car he was driving was dragging a human body. That is what the prosecution had to prove before anyone could be convicted of murder and they did not succeed in doing so.”

The judge’s view is:-
“ The denials of each of the occupants of the car that at no time did they know they were dragging anything are plainly false. By the time they left the body in Ufton Lane, they knew what it was they had been dragging.”

However, because the jury have acquitted the judge’s view is only relevant to the tariff for Manslaughter.

I feel for his poor, poor wife. I have sons of a similar age to this dear boy and my heart is in pieces for his mum. I truly don’t think I could endure what this would do to me.
No sentence would ever be enough.
I absolutely don’t think that any of the accused felt remorse. I think they are inhuman.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

A murder case was tried and they were acquitted.

I don't know how the jurors can look at themselves in the mirror knowing the murdering bastards will be out in a few years.

@lynsey91

Although it could not be proved that they knew PC Harper was being dragged along by their car, I find it extremely unlikely that they didn't know.

The fact that the driver was swerving as though to try and shake him off would really indicate that he knew. Also were they all deaf that they didn't hear his shouts or screams or the noise of his body being dragged along the ground?

Wasn't it said during the trial they turned the radio up, apparently to help the driver 'concentrate'?

@PinkSparklyPussyCat I presume you attended every day of the trial and heard all the evidence to be so convinced the jury got it wrong? Which particular point of law do you think they didn't take into account?

The jurors had to decide on the case in front of them. It would always have been hard to show the change of intention. They set out to steal a quad bike they may have been reckless as to whether a police officer was injured in a subsequent car chase but they didn’t actively set out to harm one.

I don’t envy the jury but they saw the evidence and they had to decide on that.

[quote FarTooSkinny]@PinkSparklyPussyCat I presume you attended every day of the trial and heard all the evidence to be so convinced the jury got it wrong? Which particular point of law do you think they didn't take into account?[/quote]
Don't be ridiculous.

The perpetrators are truly awful people. They must live with their actions for the rest of their lives. They will also spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders.

@WildRosie

The perpetrators are truly awful people. They must live with their actions for the rest of their lives. They will also spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders.

Do you really believe that? They have shown absolutely no remorse so I hardly think they will start now.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat you are the one being ridiculous saying "how the jurors can look at themselves in the mirror". You have no idea on their decision making process, what evidence was presented and how they came to their conclusion.

Unfortunately, that is one thing about juries - they do only do it once.

Suspect from his comments the judge would have had them down for murder if it had been him making the decision - lots of countries don't have jury trials and rely on the judge for that reason, because people chosen off the street often don't have experience or legal training and, to be honest, are sometimes not that cut out for listening to hours and hours of evidence and weighting it properly in their minds. There is no test to qualify you for being a juror.

I think there is value in a decision being made by peers (and arguably judges could be biased, particularly if they have seen lots of cases with a similar but not identical fact pattern) so it may be the lesser of two evils, but sometimes the quality of the jury is better than others (am a lawyer) and from what has been reported in the case (obviously I don't know every detail), I think this looks like a bit of a duff call by them. It was open to the jury to have decided that at some point the defendants became aware they were very likely dragging him behind the car and chose to press on, knowing that they would harm him further (intention to at least cause grievous bodily harm that results in death = murder legally speaking). Instead they found that they weren't sure on the evidence presented to them, so they had to acquit him.

Still, in the circumstances the judge did his best to impose a harsh sentence that would still withstand review.

They must live with their actions for the rest of their lives

No that would indicate taking responsibility or feeling remorse. Those bastards have done neither.

It's just not that simple. The jury have to decide if certain bits of evidence are enough to fulfil the 'guilty' criteria. They cannot say a guilty verdict otherwise.

The law is what needs to change. I say this as someone who has done jury service. 11 of us 'believed ' the person was guilty. None of us could say they were guilty based on the criteria for that decision. It's incredibly difficult.

this whole case is truly distressing, not much gets to me these days this really has, just so awful the poor family how do you ever get over something as horrific as this?

There were claims of the jury being threatened and intimidated, the verdict and sentence doesn't seem enough, but I don't think anything would seem enough punishment for these vile shits, I hope they suffer in prison but doubt they will, it all feels a travesty

The government may make the right noises in condemning what happened to Andrew Harper, bang on about how great they police are but they are responsible for the cut of 23,500 police officers, and about 8,000 support staff, a cut in spending of about 16%, this has had a massive impact on policing, unsafe staffing levels, increases in assults on Police, officers working longer hours as in the case of PC Harper and many others

@Frogsareawesome

Agreed, though of course the judge in this case did seem to suggest that he felt that the jury's decision on the evidence was not the best and he certainly didn't think that the case on the evidence presented by the defendants was remotely credible. The jury must have thought that the defendants' case was credible to be able to say that they were not able to convict because they didn't think it was beyond reasonable doubt.

You'd probably get more consistency if we dispensed with juries, but it is part of how we have build trust in our judicial system.

The dash cam shows Cole unhook the quad bike look at PC Harper and then jump through the window of the car. As he nearly caught him and would have shouted police. The music being loud is a red herring.. instinctively you check your rear view mirror. He swerved to try and get him off the car. Then he drove straight at another police car with no lights on. He could have killed that officer too.
I hope his poor family are granted a re trial or those nasty scum admit they knew for the sake of his family. No amount of time will be enough.

I have to confess that being the cynical old fucker that I am I rarely get riled by bad news stories but the manslaughter verdict genuinely angered me. Reading the fact that PC Harper was found by his colleagues with nothing but his socks on and pretty much skinned alive and unrecognisable after being dragged for a mile down a country lane has repulsed me. Watching these knackers smirk and play up to the cameras makes me wish an unpleasant ending in prison for them.

Utter utter c*nts

my sentiments exactly

Belief alone is not enough to convict someone, nor should it be. You need cold hard, demonstrable facts.

Trials are there to try and get justice for both the victim and the perpetrator, although people often forget the latter part. They're there so that you can't insist someone is beaten to a bloody pulp for nicking your sandwich, for example.

This is why things must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The state has to be certain of guilt in order to take away someone's liberty.

I would not personally like to live in a society which thinks otherwise.

I don't doubt that the men are guilty as sin, the evidence is incontrovertible as far as I can see, but they have been tried and sentenced according to the law of the land.

Justice HAS been done. You may not like it, but - and here is the important part - that doesn't matter. You weren't at the trial. You did not hear all the evidence. You are neither judge nor juror.

The law is not there for vengeance, to satisfy the internet mobs thirst for revenge, or to keep people happy. It's amazing how often people forget that.

I posted this on the other thread.

A member of my family was kidnapped and robbed at knife point by Joseph McCann. They were driven round for several hours while Joseph and his brother/friend (not sure which) laughed and joked about whether to kill them or not.
Eventually they were dumped in the middle of nowhere minus phone, wallet and shoes.
The eventual trial collapsed due to witness intimidation (and an extraordinary degree of incompetence by all the authorities involved).
The victim was 18 years old and went to court alone, such was their fear of reprisals against our family if any of us were seen by the perpetrator and his family.
The family of the perpetrators all sat in the gallery smirking, pointing, and making cut throat gestures.
We all know what that man went on to do.
The reports of his history and that of his family were published in the newspapers.
There are individuals and families who have no respect for human life or the rule of law.

These people will never have any remorse or care for what they have done, or for the suffering of PC Harper's family.