Women's safety

orraloon

rjsterry said:

Such a joy watching the Met trying to pretend he was never really a police officer despite actually using his warrant card, and handcuffs to abduct Sarah Everard.

There are total fukcin' cnuts in all walks of life. Hope he 'enjoys' his 'life' time in prison with the other dregs.

rjsterry

orraloon said:

rjsterry said:

Such a joy watching the Met trying to pretend he was never really a police officer despite actually using his warrant card, and handcuffs to abduct Sarah Everard.

There are total fukcin' cnuts in all walks of life. Hope he 'enjoys' his 'life' time in prison with the other dregs.

Wasn't really my point. Him getting beaten up in prison isn't going to help anyone.

john80

rjsterry said:

Such a joy watching the Met trying to pretend he was never really a police officer despite actually using his warrant card, and handcuffs to abduct Sarah Everard.

Were they not quite quick to arrest and charge him. Seems to me he did not receive the protection that an officer might have expected twenty years ago. Is this not some evidence that the met no longer protect their own when the evidence leads them to an officer.

DeVlaeminck

I doubt the Met of 20 years ago would have protected an officer who had kidnapped, raped, murdered and burnt a woman.

I've read that there had been some allegations of indecent exposure made against this guy though - so perhaps there were opportunities to catch him. It seems unlikely that this was his first offence.

TheBigBean

Reading the sentencing guidlines, he should receive a lengthy minimum sentence.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Reading the sentencing guidlines, he should receive a lengthy minimum sentence.

News said he could get a whole life tariff. There's been fewer than 100 of those issued since they were introduced in 1983.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Reading the sentencing guidlines, he should receive a lengthy minimum sentence.

News said he could get a whole life tariff. There's been fewer than 100 of those issued since they were introduced in 1983.

Not based on my reading, but then I'm far from an expert. I thought his starting point was 30 years, then he would get extra time for a number of factors such as having a position of authority, premeditation and destroying the body. He'd lose a bit for pleading guilty.

TheBigBean

That said, his barrister is arguing against a whole life tariff, so perhaps it is a possibility or, at least, his barrister feels like he needs to argue for something and he's not got a lot else to say.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

I doubt the Met of 20 years ago would have protected an officer who had kidnapped, raped, murdered and burnt a woman.

I've read that there had been some allegations of indecent exposure made against this guy though - so perhaps there were opportunities to catch him. It seems unlikely that this was his first offence.

This. Also the fact that he used his authority as an officer to facilitate the crime. The tone of the Met's statement is 'we're really cross with him for ruining our reputation' which misses the point by a mile.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Reading the sentencing guidlines, he should receive a lengthy minimum sentence.

News said he could get a whole life tariff. There's been fewer than 100 of those issued since they were introduced in 1983.

Not based on my reading, but then I'm far from an expert. I thought his starting point was 30 years, then he would get extra time for a number of factors such as having a position of authority, premeditation and destroying the body. He'd lose a bit for pleading guilty.

Certainly a lot of aggravating factors. I can see it being one where the judge wants to send out a message and will go for the maximum he possibly can.

Ben6899

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58747614

TheBigBean

These are the criteria.

Where the offender is 21 or over at the time of the offence and the court takes the view that the murder is so grave that the offender should spend the rest of their life in prison, a 'whole life order' is the appropriate starting point. The early release provisions in section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 will then not apply. Such an order should only be specified where the court considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high. Such cases include:

a) the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditation, the abduction of the victim, or sexual or sadistic conduct;
b) the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation;
c) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; or
d) a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.

Where the offence is not so serious as to warrant a whole life order but the seriousness of the offence is particularly high the appropriate starting point is 30 years. The following examples are given:

a) the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his duty;
b) a murder involving the use of a firearm or explosive;
c) a murder done for gain (in the course of a robbery or burglary, or done for payment);
d) a murder intended to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice;
e) a murder involving sexual or sadistic conduct;
f) the murder of two or more persons; or
g) a murder that is racially or religiously aggravated or aggravated by sexual orientation.

Where the offender the offender took a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to (a) commit any offence, or (b) have it available to use as a weapon, and used that knife or other weapon in committing the murder the normal starting point is 25 years. This increased minimum term does not apply in relation to a life sentence imposed for an offence of murder committed before 2 March 2010.

For all other offences the appropriate starting point is 15 years.

TheBigBean

Ben6899 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58747614

I don't get that, but this probably isn't the thread for legal semantics.

Ben6899

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58747614

I don't get that, but this probably isn't the thread for legal semantics.

It's a precedent that I'm comfortable with.

rick_chasey

Thread about women's safety and the chat is about not understanding the sentencing for the murderous man.

Honestly.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Thread about women's safety and the chat is about not understanding the sentencing for the murderous man.

Honestly.

You are welcome to post something you consider relevant.

shirley_basso

Another woman murdered 6 days ago: Sabina Nessa

Another one on the news today, a man held in custody

TheBigBean

Judge extremely impressed with the police

Second, this has been the most impressive police investigation that I have encountered in
the 30 years I have been sitting as a part-time and full-time judge. The speed with which
the evidence leading to the arrest of the defendant was secured is highly notable, as has
been the painstaking reconstruction of these events using electronic material along with
more old-fashioned methods of policing. It cannot be suggested in my view that the
Metropolitan Police, even for a moment, attempted to close ranks to protect one of their
own. Instead, remorselessly, efficiently and impartially the investigating officers
followed all the available leads, resulting in an overwhelming case against the accused.
Meriting particular mention are Detective Chief Inspector Catherine Goodwin, Detective
Kim Martin and Acting Detective Inspector Lee Tullett. Mr Tullett has been a key figure
in the investigation and the preparation of this case, going well beyond what could
properly be expected of any police officer, and his role deserves high commendation.

shirley_basso

Whole life sentence. Presumably will never leave prison.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Thread about women's safety and the chat is about not understanding the sentencing for the murderous man.

Honestly.

Again you have completely misread the discussion. TBB was querying whether the sentencing guidelines allowed for a while life tariff not whether one was warranted.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58747614

I don't get that, but this probably isn't the thread for legal semantics.

The guidelines you posted just gave some examples, presumably the judge felt that the aggregating factors in this case were on a par with the examples given for a whole life tariff. I doubt many people would disagree. It will probably be appealed but I doubt any judge will want to be associated with reducing the original sentence.

elbowloh

I think the sentence was given partly to show that the police are there for their safety and you need to have trust in them.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58747614

I don't get that, but this probably isn't the thread for legal semantics.

The guidelines you posted just gave some examples, presumably the judge felt that the aggregating factors in this case were on a par with the examples given for a whole life tariff. I doubt many people would disagree. It will probably be appealed but I doubt any judge will want to be associated with reducing the original sentence.

You are right, the judge even said it.

It is clear from the language of the schedule that this is not a closed list of cases. The use of the words “cases that would normally fall” into this category makes this clear.

But only for a new catgory of offence.

I would stress, therefore, that I have adopted the approach that a judge should only pass a whole life term in a case such as the present if he or she is confronted with a new category of exceptionally serious case that plainly calls to be treated in this way and the decision is, therefore, not a borderline one. Otherwise, a lengthy minimum term will suffice

In this country it is expected that the police will act in the public interest; indeed, the authority of the police is to a truly significant extent dependent on the public’s consent, and the power of officers to detain, arrest and otherwise control important aspects of our lives is only effective because of the critical trust that we repose in the constabulary, that they will act lawfully and in the best interests of society. If that is undermined, one of the enduring safeguards of law and order in this country is inevitably jeopardised. In my judgment, the misuse of a police officer’s role such as occurred in this case in order to kidnap, rape and murder a lone victim is of equal seriousness as a murder carried out for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause

kingstongraham

The guidelines as posted above say "Such an order should only be specified where the court considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high. Such cases include:" - NOT that the examples given are the only times when this should be imposed.

Edit: cross posted. More eloquently put above.

john80

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58747614

I don't get that, but this probably isn't the thread for legal semantics.

The guidelines you posted just gave some examples, presumably the judge felt that the aggregating factors in this case were on a par with the examples given for a whole life tariff. I doubt many people would disagree. It will probably be appealed but I doubt any judge will want to be associated with reducing the original sentence.

You are right, the judge even said it.

It is clear from the language of the schedule that this is not a closed list of cases. The use of the words “cases that would normally fall” into this category makes this clear.

But only for a new catgory of offence.

I would stress, therefore, that I have adopted the approach that a judge should only pass a whole life term in a case such as the present if he or she is confronted with a new category of exceptionally serious case that plainly calls to be treated in this way and the decision is, therefore, not a borderline one. Otherwise, a lengthy minimum term will suffice

In this country it is expected that the police will act in the public interest; indeed, the authority of the police is to a truly significant extent dependent on the public’s consent, and the power of officers to detain, arrest and otherwise control important aspects of our lives is only effective because of the critical trust that we repose in the constabulary, that they will act lawfully and in the best interests of society. If that is undermined, one of the enduring safeguards of law and order in this country is inevitably jeopardised. In my judgment, the misuse of a police officer’s role such as occurred in this case in order to kidnap, rape and murder a lone victim is of equal seriousness as a murder carried out for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause

He is not wrong is he. Seems fair that if police are protected by whole life tariffs when they break the law and trust of society then they should also get it handed to them.

DeVlaeminck

I admit I wasn't expecting whole life given Colin Pitchfork is now out after the rape and murder of two girls years apart but maybe that case predated the relevant sentencing guidelines/legislation.

rjsterry

https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1443552130007248897?s=19

rjsterry

I mean great that this one is locked up but what are the Met actually going to do to prevent the next? And restore some confidence. An exemplary investigation after the crime and expressions of sadness are not enough.

orraloon

Sh1t happens. And continues to happen. And always will happen. The Sarah Everard one has a different twist to it. Hence media interest. Meanwhile Sabina Nessa... and on it goes...

shirley_basso

I guess the key question is how does one put a stop to it?