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

@Porcupineinwaiting
It’s 10 years 8 months for the driver and 8 years for the passengers. That is only when they are eligible to be considered for parole, it’s not guaranteed they will be released.

@FarTooSkinny thank you so much for posting a link to the judgement.

What stood out to me reading the verdict is the concealment of evidence. What a shame their phones were never found. I'd venture there's plenty to interest a jury on there.

I bet the CPS who investigated can't sleep.

Such a terrible case. Mindblowingly awful.

@MrsAvocet excellent post explaining your situation. Thank you for sharing that type of context.

'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.'

'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.'

Yes there should be some kind of assessment before someone can become a juror imo. It is blatantly obvious the accused knew he was there, yet the jurors were somehow unconvinced. Nothing to do with lack of evidence it was all there before them. The judge's comments indicated the evidence was there. I can't imagine what kind of unintelligent thickos couldn't separate the initial accidental act of PC Harper getting entangled in the rope with the ensuing deliberate act of torturing him for a mile with the intention of killing him.

It makes me even more angry that the Judge has more or less said that it was murder. Shame he couldn't or wouldn't overrule the jury.

I honestly think they were intimidated. The Judge wouldn't know whether they were or not. They couldn't find them not guilty of anything but chose the lesser crime thereby reducing their sentences.

My understanding is that a judge can direct a jury to acquit (eg if a technical point of law means this ought to happen) but cannot direct a jury to find a defendant guilty. It’s an important principle of trial by jury that it’s the jury as a body who consider the evidence and decide whether it meets the threshold.

This is such an appalling crime that i completely understand why people wanted a murder conviction and are wishing all sorts of suffering on the perpetrators. I get that.

But there is a shocking ignorance of the law by some on this thread. A jury can convict on what they feel... it’s very clear that evidence needs to meet the required threshold.

In this case, it honestly seems that the judge has got the sentencing right, within the parameters of the law as it stands. He made it clear that this was as close to murder as you can get, and gave very tough sentences... I reckon he’s gone as close to the brink as he can without risking an appeal which could actually make things worse by reducing the sentences. He has to follow guidelines. He can’t ignore the age of the defendants or the guilty pleas to manslaughter. If he did ignore those, he would risk an appeal being successful.

Having said all this, I’ve wondered for a while (and the ignorance of some posters on here confirms it for me!) whether a trial by a panel of say, 3 judges, who understand law, would be better than having juries. Unfortunately the threshold for jury service is low... you don’t have to have a certain level of intelligence or rational thinking. But it’s such a hard one because the positive side of trial by jury is it protects against corruption and bias among the judiciary...

Of course that should read a jury cannot convict on what they feel

Having served on a jury has made me even more in favour of the jury system.

His widow is beautiful and so gracious

@Onceuponatimethen I think I agree - on balance trial by jury is perhaps a better system than any other. It just makes you question it when you read some of the ignorant shit on here, such as people suggesting the jury ‘must be’ thickos or have been leaned on. Seems fairly clear from the judge’s sentencing remarks and his carefully considered statement That the prosecution simply couldn’t provide the evidence required to uphold a murder charge.

If the prosecution has had evidence from mobile phones, or if one of the defendants had decided to Come clean or even grass the others up and admit how the conversation during that terrible car drive had Really gone, then it could have been a different outcome. But being ignorant cowards with no respect for life, none of them Did.

The statement by PC Harper’s widow was just heart breaking. But much as I understand her wish to have a conviction for murder, I now feel that a retrial could make things worse. Unless there is absolute cast iron new evidence coming to light, there’s a real risk that it could go badly wrong.

'Having said all this, I’ve wondered for a while (and the ignorance of some posters on here confirms it for me!) whether a trial by a panel of say, 3 judges, who understand law, would be better than having juries. Unfortunately the threshold for jury service is low... you don’t have to have a certain level of intelligence or rational thinking.'

Please don't be so condescending. Posters on this site aren't ignorant, the offenders were charged with murder, the cps don't do that unless there is evidence and a case. The family clearly thought there was a chance for conviction of murder, they will have been given good advice by legal professionals not by any 'ignorant' posters you sneer at.

They may not have set out to murder PC Harper, but when the opportunity presented itself they carried on knowing it would kill him. That is intent surely?

I do agree with your comments about the threshold for juries, someone's intelligence is paramount. They should be assessed to see if they can comprehend basic texts before being allowed to sit.

I too have sat on a jury as have several people I know (we are all lawyers though not criminal lawyers) and the overwhelming sense we had, is how seriously jurors take it. There was a real feeling of responsibility. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high threshold and having to infer intent in the face of denials is hard.

[quote FarTooSkinny]@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.[/quote]
I understand that, but I still wouldn't be able to look in the mirror if I'd been on that jury knowing that, thanks to our decision, three murdering bastards would be free in a few years. Just because the decision was made according to the restrictions of the law doesn't mean I would be happy with it.

Wasn't one of the jurors dismissed because the silly cow was being friendly with the defendants? That makes me wonder what else went on.

@GetOffYourHighHorse It’s not condescending to point out that some of the posts on here are ignorant in the extreme. Not the majority but some. There have been posts saying that the jury must have been leaned on or must be thick to not find them guilty of murder.

I’m well aware thanks, that the CPS have a threshold to bring a case to trial. In this particular case it they believed there was a chance If conviction but the prosecution were unable to meet the threshold required.

I just wish the (few) ignorant posters would stop spouting shit because aside from anything else it can’t be pleasant reading for any of PC Harper’s family if they see anything like this. They’ve gone through unimaginable horrors already, but if they read people saying that the jury must have A) been too stupid to understand the evidence or B) really believed the evidence was strong enough to convict for murder but were too scared because they were being intimidated - well, that must make a terrible situation feel even worse.

In reality it seems the judge and the jury thought the defendants case that they didn’t know PC harper was behind the car was a pack of lies but there just wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Which is so so sad, but it’s important in a civilised society that justice operates with integrity. They couldn’t convict just on what they felt, they had to do it properly. I suspect the jury are as sickened as anyone else that the murder charge could not be proved. Perhaps more so as those poor people had to hear details we can’t imagine.

It makes me even more angry that the Judge has more or less said that it was murder. Shame he couldn't or wouldn't overrule the jury

I read it more that he thought their explanation was a load of crap and he didn’t believe a word of it. But that’s not proof they’re guilty either - the prosecution has to prove their guilt not hint at it

Case in point right there above.
Why the fuck should members of the jury not be able to look at themselves in the mirror simply because the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for a murder conviction?
WTAF??
The bastards are in jail because of their own actions not anyone else’s.

One member of the jury was seen to be behaving in a way which suggested bias towards the defendants- and she was rightly dismissed. Why assume the others were also behaving inappropriately?

If I’d had the misfortune to be picked on that jury, which must have been a horrible task, I would not be looking in the mirror and blaming myself. Let’s stop laying blame elsewhere- it lies solely with the vicious bastards who did the crime.

Let’s also remember that from the judge’s statement, he’s sentenced them along pretty similar lines to what they’d get if the murder conviction was proven. A murder conviction would still have had a tariff of a certain number of years attached. The defendants might even have had to serve only half than two thirds of it.

Fair enough to criticise the judicial system, length of custodial sentences etc but bloody disgusting to criticise other people for acting within the parameters of the judicial system as it stands

@kierenthecommunity just to be clear, I wasn’t referring to your post, I mean the one above my previous post. Entirely agree with yours

Seeing them laughing actually made me tear up, disgusting humans.

@Caelano

Case in point right there above. Why the fuck should members of the jury not be able to look at themselves in the mirror simply because the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for a murder conviction? WTAF?? The bastards are in jail because of their own actions not anyone else’s.

One member of the jury was seen to be behaving in a way which suggested bias towards the defendants- and she was rightly dismissed. Why assume the others were also behaving inappropriately?

If I’d had the misfortune to be picked on that jury, which must have been a horrible task, I would not be looking in the mirror and blaming myself. Let’s stop laying blame elsewhere- it lies solely with the vicious bastards who did the crime.

Let’s also remember that from the judge’s statement, he’s sentenced them along pretty similar lines to what they’d get if the murder conviction was proven. A murder conviction would still have had a tariff of a certain number of years attached. The defendants might even have had to serve only half than two thirds of it.

Fair enough to criticise the judicial system, length of custodial sentences etc but bloody disgusting to criticise other people for acting within the parameters of the judicial system as it stands

So, because I don't agree with you you're calling me ignorant. I explained that I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I'd been on that jury as I I don't believe it was manslaughter, I believe it was murder. Despite the fact you think I'm thick, I know that the jury has to convict on the evidence however it doesn't mean I couldn't feel I'd failed PC Harper and his family.

They’ve gone through unimaginable horrors already, but if they read people saying that the jury must have A) been too stupid to understand the evidence or B) really believed the evidence was strong enough to convict for murder but were too scared because they were being intimidated - well, that must make a terrible situation feel even worse.

Lissie Harper herself has said that she believes that the jury were intimidated www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/andrew-harper-murder-retrial-lissie-jury-intimidation-a9643821.html and www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/31435/pc-andrew-harper-murder-trial-widow-pens-open-letter.html nothing can make the situation worse, they have lost someone they loved in a very brutal way, the verdict is insulting but nowhere near as painful as what the family have already suffered. People may, in your view be spouting shit, but people are rightly angry that a man was brutally killed while simply doing his job, the so called justice doesn't match the horrific nature of the crime, changes needs to happen, and they wont happen alone, change can be bought about by protesting and petitions

@PinkSparklyPussyCat I doubt any of the remaining jury (after the stupid cow had been dismissed) were happy with the outcome. That doesn’t mean they should feel guilt, or ‘unable to look at themselves.’ They aren’t the ones who have done anything wrong.

I can’t be bothered any more. I clarified in 2 posts that I was taking about I, as in me. I really didn’t think it was that hard

Mrs Harper, as lovely and dignified as she’s presented herself, and as articulate as she is, is not impartial. Just because she thinks the jury were intimidated, it doesn’t mean they were. From the description given by the judges summing up, it appears they had a great deal of anonymity and presumably the courts weren’t open to the public due to Covid?

If indeed it’s investigated and this comes to light, then she may get the retrial. But I’d be surprised.

Even the dismissed juror - wasn’t she seen saying something like ‘bye boys’? Which could have easily been her instigating ‘you’re going down’ rather than she was being friendly towards them. Still right to dismiss her, but whether she favoured them is a moot point.

She was seen by a prison officer repeatedly smiling at the defendants.