Stephen Lawrence case

rick_chasey

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet...

I was too young to remember it happening, or the (substantial) fallout afterwards, but I've read up on it a bit, and newsnight gave a solid brief analysis last night.

We touched upon the racist issue in the police during the riots (well, I did anyway), and I was reminded of some of the points we made when newsnight mentioned the Macpherson report.

Credit where credit is due, some people and organisations have done the right thing during this. The parents naturally, the Daily Mail, who where the catalyst for this current trial and the overturning of the law, and various politicians across the spectrum who kept plugging away at what is a messy, unsexy, and difficult job for a politician.

It may be crass to speak of the political and press winners and losers regarding a murder, but, rightly or wrongly, the murder has become a lot more than that.

Anyway, figured it deserved a place on the thread...

FoldingJoe

I'm actually finding it quite hard to reconcile the issue around the sentencing maximum term!!

After having committed the act as teenagers some 18 years ago they will now be sentenced as juveniles, which I find wrong.

bails87

I'm glad they've finally been convicted for this.

It's worth bearing in mind that the Daily Mail front page could easily have destroyed any chance of a prosecution, it would have been easy for them to claim it would prejudice any jury. Luckily it didn't, credit goes (eventually) to the police especially the cold case/forensics teams, and of course to the parents for keeping this going.

There's apparently a very good episode of Panorama which I'll watch on iplayer tonight, also a good piece on The Graun about Norris and Dobson. The word 'c*nt' is rarely as appropriate as it is for these two. I wonder if they'll appeal?

Also: "Dear Paul Dacre"

The Daily Mail is part of a British press that is at worst responsible for creating the racial hatred and fear that exists in so many poorly-educated people in Britain over the last 30 years; or at best can only claim that it hasn’t created any racists, it is just responding to what racist consumers want by printing hateful, dishonest smears against other races. Either way is inexcusable.

Your newspaper is racist and it will still be racist tomorrow and the next day and the day after that.

dhope

FoldingJoe wrote:

they will now be sentenced as juveniles, which I find wrong.

Why though? The reason there are different sentences for juveniles is because of the understanding that kids may not be deemed as responsible for their actions as adults (I'm sure there's a correct legal wording but that's basically it).

What seems strange to me is sentencing them under 1985 juvenile guidelines.

If a 90yr old American were found 'guilty' today of being gay in the US 70 years ago (think it was illegal in some parts then, dunno) then they wouldn't be sentenced according to the law at the time because the law has since been reformed. Same principle should apply here. Sentence according to current (and presumably more enlightened) guidelines.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

I'm glad they've finally been convicted for this.

It's worth bearing in mind that the Daily Mail front page could easily have destroyed any chance of a prosecution, it would have been easy for them to claim it would prejudice any jury. Luckily it didn't, credit goes (eventually) to the police especially the cold case/forensics teams, and of course to the parents for keeping this going.

There's apparently a very good episode of Panorama which I'll watch on iplayer tonight, also a good piece on The Graun about Norris and Dobson. The word 'c*nt' is rarely as appropriate as it is for these two. I wonder if they'll appeal?

Also: Dear Paul Dacre"]The Daily Mail is part of a British press that is at worst responsible for creating the racial hatred and fear that exists in so many poorly-educated people in Britain over the last 30 years; or at best can only claim that it hasn’t created any racists, it is just responding to what racist consumers want by printing hateful, dishonest smears against other races. Either way is inexcusable.

Your newspaper is racist and it will still be racist tomorrow and the next day and the day after that.

Ah I think people are being too hard on the Mail in this instance.

Without the Mail campaign I seriously doubt this would have happened.

It may be hypocritical, it may not be, but it's better something than nothing.

DonDaddyD

They are being sentenced as juveniles because they were under 18 when they committed the crime.

For what it's worth I think that is fair and should be upheld. If I at 15 committed a crime and the case took 6 years to reach a verdict it wouldn't be right that I was then tried as a man aged 21.

As juveniles the minimum term they could serve is 12 years however the judge has the descretion to decide how long, so could give them longer. They could theoretically serve a term covering the rest of their natural lives. This process I also think is fair as it allows the specific circumstances around each case to be considered independently.

bails87

Yeah, the sentenced as juveniles thing makes sense, I'm not sure about the 1985 one though?

FoldingJoe

I understand the reasoning, and I also accept that if it is the judicial system that has caused the delay in the sentencing that you could not possibly be expected to then be given a higher minimum sentence as an adult!!

Just seems wrong to me, but there you go.

I'll sure they'll be sentenced to what they deserve.

cjcp

FoldingJoe wrote:

I'll sure they'll be sentenced to what they deserve.

Unfortunately, not, because despicable creatures like that deserve much, much more.

Stevo_666

cjcp wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

I'll sure they'll be sentenced to what they deserve.

Unfortunately, not, because despicable creatures like that deserve much, much more.

Which they may get (unofficially) once they are in the slammer, with any luck.

DonDaddyD

FoldingJoe wrote:

I understand the reasoning, and I also accept that if it is the judicial system that has caused the delay in the sentencing that you could not possibly be expected to then be given a higher minimum sentence as an adult!!

Just seems wrong to me, but there you go.

I'll sure they'll be sentenced to what they deserve.

You're not being clear, what actually seems wrong and why?

veronese68

cjcp wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

I'll sure they'll be sentenced to what they deserve.

Unfortunately, not, because despicable creatures like that deserve much, much more.

+1 to this. On a similar note could the bloke accused of shooting the indian student that called himself Psycho in court not just be shot.
Sentencing would be along the lines of "You're obviously not taking this seriously and you seem to think this level of violence is cool, so it's only right that we terminate you immediately".

spen666

FoldingJoe wrote:

I'm actually finding it quite hard to reconcile the issue around the sentencing maximum term!!

After having committed the act as teenagers some 18 years ago they will now be sentenced as juveniles, which I find wrong.

Why?

They were juveniles when they did the act. They should be punished for what they did.
The maximum sentence is detention at her majesty's pleasure. You are confusing tariff period with maximum sentences and they are very different things

Ben6899

spen666 wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

I'm actually finding it quite hard to reconcile the issue around the sentencing maximum term!!

After having committed the act as teenagers some 18 years ago they will now be sentenced as juveniles, which I find wrong.

Why?

They were juveniles when they did the act. They should be punished for what they did.
The maximum sentence is detention at her majesty's pleasure. You are confusing tariff period with maximum sentences and they are very different things

Can you explain the difference, please?

DonDaddyD

15 and 14 years is some bullshit.

I was expecting 20 years for both. Even the police said they would have expected 20 years.

The judge needed to grow a pair.

spen666

I have to say that I feel the conviction of these two casts a shadow over the English justice system. The two ( whether guilty or not) did not and could not have a fair trial after all the prejudicial material about them published in the last 18 years.

These two were convicted by the media not by the normal judicial process.
The new forensic evidence was very suspect

I have written about this more in my blog post

NGale

FoldingJoe wrote:

I'm actually finding it quite hard to reconcile the issue around the sentencing maximum term!!

After having committed the act as teenagers some 18 years ago they will now be sentenced as juveniles, which I find wrong.

Juvenile or not, they will be sentenced to a mandatory life sentence for murder. That sentence holds regardless of age.

However what most people see in sentencing is '....recommended to serve XXXX years' which is usually where the cry of 'Life should mean life' comes from, Life does mean life, however when released on parole a prisoner spends the rest of their life on a license which will always have conditions attached and probation officers allocated. Sneeze in the wrong place at the wrong time and a lifer could be hauled back into jail.

In the case of this pair, they will receive the mandatory life sentence, it's a case of how long they will serve before they are considered for parole. Now the judge may say 12 years for example, but that is a guideline. when it comes to it the parole board will look at if the pair confessed to the killing (they have not) if they have shown any remorse (which they have not) other criminal convictions (which they both have) behaviour in prison etc etc. They can easily decide they are not rehabilitated and still a danger and not allow release. It does happen, I have seen it on a couple of occasions.

When it comes to their sentence calculation, because they are being sentenced pre 2003 criminal justice act, the sentence calculation clerk at the prison they are being sent to will have to not just look at the life sentence, but also the recommended time, the amount of days spent in police custody (yes pre 2003, prisoners had time knocked off a sentence for time spent in police custody) and then do some jiggery pokery with the maths to come up with their final date in which a parole hearing has to be carried out by.

I believe one is already currently serving a 5 year sentence for another issue so that will also be calculated into the sentence as I should think it will be a concurrent sentence rather than a consecutive one. The prison authorities just have to make sure when his five year sentence is up they don't accidentally release him. Yes that has happened on a few occasions!

Sentence planning is a bit of a sod and I'm glad it's not a job I had to do when I was working for HMPS, in fact the sentence planning clerk at the establishment I worked at was a Mathematics and Statistics Grad from UCL. He could have done far better than the prison service but he enjoyed playing with the numbers!

I just stuck with the job of intelligence gathering for the public protection unit and security. Now that job was fun! pity about the pay!

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

15 and 14 years is some bullshit.

I was expecting 20 years for both. Even the police said they would have expected 20 years.

The judge needed to grow a pair.

Think you need to grow a pair

firstly - the tariff for this was 12 years - the judge has increased this.

The defendants have to be sentenced according to their age at the time of the offence and the sentencing guidelines from then.

15 years is a very long time. Imagine you getting 15 years MINIMUM ( no release 1/2 way through, no guarantee of getting out after 15 years) You would be looking at your kid leaving school before you could even be considered for release. Dobson will be in his 50s before he is released

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

15 and 14 years is some bullshit.

I was expecting 20 years for both. Even the police said they would have expected 20 years.

The judge needed to grow a pair.

Think you need to grow a pair

firstly - the tariff for this was 12 years - the judge has increased this.

The defendants have to be sentenced according to their age at the time of the offence and the sentencing guidelines from then.

15 years is a very long time. Imagine you getting 15 years MINIMUM ( no release 1/2 way through, no guarantee of getting out after 15 years) You would be looking at your kid leaving school before you could even be considered for release. Dobson will be in his 50s before he is released

You fail to comprehend that I have my own Lawyer, a very good one, who already explained all the above and more to me.

I think 15years is 5 years too short. I would have liked to have seen 20, high teens (16/17 or over) at least.

spen666

Ben6899 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

I'm actually finding it quite hard to reconcile the issue around the sentencing maximum term!!

After having committed the act as teenagers some 18 years ago they will now be sentenced as juveniles, which I find wrong.

Why?

They were juveniles when they did the act. They should be punished for what they did.
The maximum sentence is detention at her majesty's pleasure. You are confusing tariff period with maximum sentences and they are very different things

Can you explain the difference, please?

Which difference?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

15 and 14 years is some bullshit.

I was expecting 20 years for both. Even the police said they would have expected 20 years.

The judge needed to grow a pair.

Think you need to grow a pair

firstly - the tariff for this was 12 years - the judge has increased this.

The defendants have to be sentenced according to their age at the time of the offence and the sentencing guidelines from then.

15 years is a very long time. Imagine you getting 15 years MINIMUM ( no release 1/2 way through, no guarantee of getting out after 15 years) You would be looking at your kid leaving school before you could even be considered for release. Dobson will be in his 50s before he is released

You fail to comprehend that I have my own Lawyer, a very good one, who already explained all the above and more to me.

I think 15years is 5 years too short. I would have liked to have seen 20, high teens (16/17 or over) at least.

Well if you understood what you had been told, you would know they were not sentenced to 15 years.

They were sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure - ie life - the 15 years is the MINIMUM period before they could even be considered for release. It does not mean they will be released then or ever

NGale

DonDaddyD wrote:

15 and 14 years is some bullshit.

I was expecting 20 years for both. Even the police said they would have expected 20 years.

The judge needed to grow a pair.

Hate to say it DDD, but I can see why the Judge went for those sentences. Gives them less chance of a successful appeal. Also if they did appeal it makes the likelihood of the appeal judges actually upping the minimum terms instead of reducing.

Ben6899

spen666 wrote:

Which difference?

The difference between tariff period and maximum sentences.

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

15 and 14 years is some bullshit.

I was expecting 20 years for both. Even the police said they would have expected 20 years.

The judge needed to grow a pair.

Think you need to grow a pair

firstly - the tariff for this was 12 years - the judge has increased this.

The defendants have to be sentenced according to their age at the time of the offence and the sentencing guidelines from then.

15 years is a very long time. Imagine you getting 15 years MINIMUM ( no release 1/2 way through, no guarantee of getting out after 15 years) You would be looking at your kid leaving school before you could even be considered for release. Dobson will be in his 50s before he is released

You fail to comprehend that I have my own Lawyer, a very good one, who already explained all the above and more to me.

I think 15years is 5 years too short. I would have liked to have seen 20, high teens (16/17 or over) at least.

Well if you understood what you had been told, you would know they were not sentenced to 15 years.

They were sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure - ie life - the 15 years is the MINIMUM period before they could even be considered for release. It does not mean they will be released then or ever

Sigh...

I'm writing from the perspective of a lay person who already fully understands what you are saying.

Let me put it in language you understand, legal speak:

I think they should be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure - ie life - for 20 years or at the very least in the high teens. The 20 years or at very a sentence residing in the high teens would be the MINIMUM period before they should even be considered for release.

Understand?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

15 and 14 years is some bullshit.

I was expecting 20 years for both. Even the police said they would have expected 20 years.

The judge needed to grow a pair.

Think you need to grow a pair

firstly - the tariff for this was 12 years - the judge has increased this.

The defendants have to be sentenced according to their age at the time of the offence and the sentencing guidelines from then.

15 years is a very long time. Imagine you getting 15 years MINIMUM ( no release 1/2 way through, no guarantee of getting out after 15 years) You would be looking at your kid leaving school before you could even be considered for release. Dobson will be in his 50s before he is released

You fail to comprehend that I have my own Lawyer, a very good one, who already explained all the above and more to me.

I think 15years is 5 years too short. I would have liked to have seen 20, high teens (16/17 or over) at least.

Well if you understood what you had been told, you would know they were not sentenced to 15 years.

They were sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure - ie life - the 15 years is the MINIMUM period before they could even be considered for release. It does not mean they will be released then or ever

Sigh...

I'm writing from the perspective of a lay person who already fully understands what you are saying.

Let me put it in language you understand, legal speak:

I think they should be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure - ie life - for 20 years or at the very least in the high teens. The 20 years or at very a sentence residing in the high teens would be the MINIMUM period before they should even be considered for release.

Understand?

They have been sentenced to life (detention at Her Majesty's pleasure)

spen666

Ben6899 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Which difference?

The difference between tariff period and maximum sentences.

Maximum sentence is what is says on the tin - the maximum period that can be imposed for an offence - eg 7 years for theft, life for murder etc


Tariff only applies to life sentences (inc detention at HM's Pleasure which is equivalent for youths). Tariff is the minimum period somebody must serve before they can be considered for release on parole. Once released they are subject to recall at anytime if the authorities so desire irrespective of not committing any new offence

The judge sets the tariff period.

The tariff period is not subject to reduction in the was a determinate sentence is. IE get 5 years for assault and you will be eligible for release after 2.5 subject to good behaviour. The tariff period is the length set by the judge and is not halved

cjcp

bails87 wrote:

It's worth bearing in mind that the Daily Mail front page could easily have destroyed any chance of a prosecution, it would have been easy for them to claim it would prejudice any jury.

[/quote]

Didn't that front page follow the collapse of the private prosecution and an inquest? Watching last night's coverage, I got the feeling that public sentiment was already against them by the time the Mail's front page. Also, at the time, the double jeopardy law hadn't been passed, so they couldn't be prosecuted again, anyway. So the Mail baited the little oiks to sue them for libel. Would have been interesting because the standard of proof in a civil trial is lower than a criminal trial.

Overall, the piece of media coverage that always stuck in my mind was of them exiting the public enquiry, when they did a fairly decent job prejudicing themselves.

Ben6899

Thanks spen.

walkingbootweather

So when do the other gang members get their day in court?

Sewinman

This opinion will no doubt prove controversial but I have to wonder whether these two got a fair trial. Seems to me that they were tried by media many many times over the years, and you would have to be from Mars to not be completely prejudiced against them as a juror. I am not sure the removal of double-jeopardy is a good thing either, it now allows the law to hound people ad infinitum. No bad thing in this case as it allowed a re-trial, but it has wider implications for society.

I think they are guilty, but I have been prejudiced by the media too. I would probably have refused to be a juror in this case.

rick_chasey

I heard something on newsnight along the lines of the defendant case was utterly utterly weak. I.e. not much to go on. No evidence presented to help their case etc.

From the stories before, there was way more than enough evidence to prosecute the lot - the police made a hash of it, hence the scandal.

Even newsnight which is careful careful re this kind of thing was at pains to say how much evidence there had been.