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 am so sad for PC Harper's wife and family. Those killers are utter scum.

I think the main problem is the definition of 'murder' in English law. There is no statutory definition of 'murder' but the common law definition as explained on the Crown Prosecution Service website is:

"the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
-Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
-unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
-any reasonable creature (human being);
-in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs);
-under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
-with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm."

It would be MUCH better to have a definition such as New Zealand's, which includes causing an injury that is LIKELY to lead to death and NOT CARING whether or not death ensues - s167(b) below:

"Murder, manslaughter, etc
167 Murder defined
Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:
(a) if the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:
(b) if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:
(c) if the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and by accident or mistake kills another person, though he or she does not mean to hurt the person killed:
(d) if the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he or she knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he or she may have desired that his or her object should be effected without hurting any one."

It's also the fact those fucking scum bags and their scum bag mates and family were laughing, smiling and CHEERING after their sentencing. Vile vile, evil, nasty scum, all of them.

@Caelano you don't know for sure that the jury were not intimidated. I read that they had police protection because of intimidation.

It's obvious the boys' families are as disgusting scum as their sons so highly likely they would try and intimidate the jury. Normal law abiding people would be absolutely horrified at their son's actions but these families are seemingly proud of them.

I would find it far more surprising if they had not tried to intimidate the jury. They get away with all sorts of crime because people are too scared to report them or they threaten people. Even the police often do not want to go into travellers' sites

It's also the fact those fucking scum bags and their scum bag mates and family were laughing, smiling and CHEERING after their sentencing

Did this actually happen? I assumed there were no spectators in court at the moment?

The defendants may have been smirking after conviction but from what I’ve read this was far from the case when they were sentenced

@lynsey91 none of us know for sure because we weren’t there. The information most likely to be accurate is the statements from the Judge. He made it clear that the possibility of intimidation was investigated and none found. Clearly the levels of security for the jury was extremely high, with names withheld etc

What @kierenthecommunity says is spot on. If new evidence comes to light that the jury was intimidated, or that a murder charge could reasonably be upheld, then a retrial could be held. However the only new evidence I can think of would be if evidence from phones or conversation between the 3 defendants comes to light which proves beyond reasonable doubt that they knew PC harper was likely to be seriously injured or killed.

I doubt the 3 defendants will ever disclose what the conversation was during that car journey. It would probably only ever happen if one of them had genuinely wanted the driver to stop, and had pleaded with him and been ignored. They’ll never break ranks to admit that- and even if one did, it would be nigh on impossible to prove it because the driver would claim the conversation didn’t happen.

That’s the only basis for a retrial- new evidence. The fact that any right minded person believes that the scum knew PC harper was being dragged is not a basis for a retrial, sadly, because it all comes down to the level of proof required.

It would be terrible anyway if a retrial was granted without new evidence because the whole process would happen again with the same result - another jury having to be subjected to the awful experience and having to find not guilty due to lack of meeting the threshold

'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.'

On the contrary, I believe they welcome the support from the public.

You know people are allowed their own opinions on here? You seem to think you are a Mumsnet nominated barrister overseeing proceedings. I question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't believe what the offenders did showed intent and was indeed murder. There was evidence or else it wouldn't have got to court, the fact the jury didn't accept the evidence 'reached the threshold' is why people question their ability to understand. You think differently, that's entirely up to you.

'I doubt the 3 defendants will ever disclose what the conversation was during that car journey'

No shit, Sherlock.

How can any of us objectively assess whether or not the jury was right when we weren’t in court and haven’t heard the evidence or legal argument.

When I was on a jury last year we were very much guided by the judge regarding the verdict we should reach.
It was unanimous anyway.
I suspect this jury were given similar guidance.

I think it is good that there is a robust discussion about the case. As a lawyer I believe people should understand how the justice system works and it’s good and bad points.

The report after the verdict was reached moved me to tears for Andrew Parker's wife and family. No sentence would be enough for a family in these circumstances. There's been nearly a year since his death and the family had the trial to go through.

The Judge has set out clearly how he calculated the sentences and I think he did as much as he could to give the maximum sentence. I don't think anyone would dispute those toe rags killed Andrew Parker even though it isn't a verdict of murder. Although they are scum when one of their own gets killed 'out on the rob' mayhem pursues.

I have signed the petition even though I know the government doesn't interfere in criminal cases. But his wife and family are probably awake at night fretting over the way he died

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

How can any of us objectively assess whether or not the jury was right when we weren’t in court and haven’t heard the evidence or legal argument.

Transparency? I thought the media reported what was said in court (barring his horrific injuries).

It seemed to boil to the jury believing someone could drive a mile not knowing they were dragging someone, which anyone who drives a car knows would be impossible. Imo.

It boils down to the burden of proof being on the prosecution to present evidence that reached the threshold to secure a conviction.

It’s pretty damn obvious that every right thinking person knows the defendants claim to ‘not know’ they were dragging a body for a mile is a crock of shite. A trial is about evidence meeting the threshold for the charges.

There was evidence or else it wouldn't have got to court, the fact the jury didn't accept the evidence 'reached the threshold' is why people question their ability to understand.

Why assume that, because the case came to court, the evidence for guilt must have been conclusive? That's incredibly dangerous - look at the number of miscarriage of justice cases.

The CPS simply had to be satisfied that there was at least a 50% chance of conviction. Even when they think they have a really strong chance, they don't know exactly how the evidence is going to come over when witnesses are in court and are cross-examined. And of course the CPS aren't infallible in their judgments anyway. DSis was on a jury quite recently where every member was sure that the defendant was guilty of an offence, the trouble was that the evidence came nowhere near showing that he was guilty of the offence he was charged with. She was foreman, and when she pronounced the "Not guilty" verdict she was quite taken aback by the sheer fury on the face of the prosecutor - yet he should have had the sense to see that the wrong charges had been brought.

The fact that the jury didn't convict of murder doesn't automatically meant that they were too thick to understand; it simply means that the evidence as presented to them didn't reach the beyond reasonable doubt threshold.

Exactly pobblebonk.

'The fact that the jury didn't convict of murder doesn't automatically meant that they were too thick to understand; it simply means that the evidence as presented to them didn't reach the beyond reasonable doubt threshold.'

Yes I really do get that they didn't believe/couldn't understand that the evidence reached the threshold. My question is why. There was no doubt they were in the car, there sadly was no doubt what caused PC Harper's death. We know it is impossible to drive without knowing someone was being dragged. What more evidence did they need? In other crimes we don't expect verbal evidence. The facts are the evidence surely.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The original jury were threatened, I think that tells us all we need to know. Fucking disgusting criminals.

I think that most of us don't really understand much about the criminal justice system unless we unfortunately get involved in it somehow. I certainly didn't and I am a well educated professional woman who thought I would find it all fairly straightforward and easy to understand.
One of the things that I hadn't really appreciated was just how difficult it can be to secure a conviction, even when the facts of what actually happened seem pretty straightforward. Also I was shocked by how little say victims of crime have in anything that happens, or indeed how little "the system" cares about you as a victim. Maybe I was unlucky, but for all the fine words at the beginning, as a victim I received virtually no support. Nobody even bothered to tell me when my assailant was being sentenced, I saw it in the local paper afterwards.
So I do believe that there is a lot wrong with our criminal justice system. On the other hand I have a close friend who was wrongly accused of a serious crime and I was relieved for her that a high level of evidence was needed or she may have been convicted for something that she had no part in. Before that, I would probably have been of the "no smoke without fire" school of thought, but now I know that totally innocent people do get accused. Obviously that's not the case here, but the point is that miscarriages of justice do occur, and the bar has to be set high to minimise them.
It does seem wrong that these men were not convicted of murder - it certainly seems contrary to natural justice, but that doesn't mean it is contrary to our current justice system. Maybe its time for a review of the law, I don't really know, and it couldn't be applied retrospectively anyway. But what I am sure about is that the standards must be applied consistently, no matter how horrific the crime or how abhorrent the perpetrators. No system is ever going to be infallible unfortunately, and I think in this case the judge did his best to give as long sentences as he could without leaving the door too wide open for appeals.

Witness intimidation in my relative's case was physical, psychological and terrifying. We all lived in fear for a couple of years after the trial. I have no idea about the jury. Many, many people were terrified of that family. With good reason.

I wonder what was on the phones that went missing .

I agree legally this case is border line . It was proving the intent to kill . And unless you were in the car with them and they said he copper is caught on the straps let’s kill him . I those few seconds it’s premeditated . But none of them were going to admit that happened .and as far as I know the interviews were all no comment .

So it’s that proof that’s difficult. Common sense tells us they knew . Common sense tells us turning up the music was a lie . But unless one of them grassed the others it was never going to happen.

And as for the comment they won’t become master criminals , I think going to steal intentionally with masks and weapons is pretty hardcore and I wish there was no reduction in the sentence for age . They deserve the full 16 and 13 years minimum.

Do they actually have learning difficulties?

Or just lack of education?

I hadn't read this anywhere previously.

None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education. Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too young. Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties, although they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is brighter but chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night and was giving the orders.

Taken from the Judges summary.

@sukiginger

Do they actually have learning difficulties?

Or just lack of education?

I hadn't read this anywhere previously.

Two of them had learning difficulties and had special eduction. But they all left school early, IIRC.

@SusieOwl4
They drove through a village with music playing with the car set up for the robbery that doesn’t suggest much deep thought. None of them are particularly intelligent and two have learning difficulties. People on the thread were suggesting they would come out of prison as well honed expert criminals. I simply don’t think they have the capacity to be anything more sophisticated than the sort of low level petty criminal they were but even a low level petty criminal can do awful things.

I doubt they will come out as model citizens but they won’t be master criminals either.
@ChazsBrilliantAttitude the sort of crime which blights people's lives isn't committed by master criminals, it's committed by lowlife thugs. Most people aren't directly affected by bank heists, they are instead directly affected by burglars and muggers. Ask Joe/Jo Public who they want to see swinging from a lamppost, it's usually the scumbags who rob grannies for their pension money rather than the Hatton Garden lot.