Sentence Quashed

Having long been an advocate of the Death Penalty what would we the be thinking now if we were the Jury that convicted this guy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18102336

I have never been an advocate of the death penalty, even though in some cases it is justified. It's because of cases like this and many others like it that I have always been against capital punishment and would never vote for it to be reinstated.

I certainly agree Phil but with an ever increasing number of murders and viscious crime, something has to be done to make a deterrent.

As I've always said Life should mean just that, the rest of your life in prison. Not just 10 or 12 years.

Unfortunately, the do-gooders and the pussy footing human rights brigade have put paid to that. It time that the victims human rights were considered more.

Myself I think it has more to do with the expense of keeping them locked up in prison all their lives. What we need is some sort of a system where they can earn their own keep. Mind you I'm never going to believe the figures quoted for keeping an inmate in prison per week. You can bet that 60% of that goes in clerical costs and home office management.

I always remember when we were at school we had a talk from a guy from the Home Office. He reckoned (and this was in the sixties) that keeping a kid in Borstal was dearer than sending someone to Eton.

How quick people are to judge.
He's Guilty. Hang him.
He's innocent. Blame the police.

How about he's not innocent?
Whilst I can't care enough to cause me to read the entire report, the evidence of his phones proves nothing to me except where his phones were at the time of the offence.
He must have had a defence lawyer who could have presented such evidence at court. Surely if one wants to prove that one wasn't at any given location at any given time then there can't be any more pressing need than to prove by all means possible that one was somewhere else at that give time. What other evidence could me more important?

Given enough time all convictions will become unsafe due to disinterest, death or migration of witnesses, deterioration of evidence, manufacturing of evidence, public interference, etc.

Volty

Just because someone does not care to say where he was when the crime was committed does not prove his guilt. At one time the onus was on the courts to prove guilt not for the accused to prove their innocence.

Our legal system such as it is has found he had no case to answer and according to Lady Justice Hallett and the Court of Appeal the previous verdict was unsafe. Myself I would imagine this verdict was based on poor investigation by the police and compounded by bad advice and representation by his defence team rather than the photos placed in evedence at the Appeal.

Phil, my point was that if the evidence was available at the time of the trial, and don't forget it was the phones of accused, then why didn't the defence bring this evidence up at the trail? Isn't this exactly the sort of evidence they should have been looking for? What else did they have to do?

Every time there is a claimed miscarriage of justice there seems to have been some apathy on the part of the accused. Perhaps the people accused of such crimes, wrongly or rightly, are incredibly thick.
As to not caring to say where you actually were at the time of a crime, well that is gross negligence of your own defence and should carry a separate penalty. It is widely believed that only the guilty have anything to hide.
I know if my liberty depended on dissuading a jury of my presence at a crime scene, I would explore every possible avenue to support my claim, I wouldn't just sit quietly and hope I was believed.
That must be it, they are all incredibly thick, along with their solicitors who just want the final invoice paid irrespective of the outcome.

Voltman
I would agree with some of your comments, especially the last sentence, but, as I understand it, it is only the police tha can ask your service provider to search where your mobile was , so the police would certainly seem to have been criminally negligent if they did not so do.

Volty


I don't know a great deal about crown courts, but I have a little experience of magistrates courts through real or imagined offences that our vehicles committed in years gone by. I do know that if you choose to be represented then you are not allowed to say anything in court unless asked.

It seems that his defence for reasons known only to themselves did not choose to introduce these photos into evidence. If the prosecution knew about them then they thought better of it. I know I may be thought a little cynical but I have heard of evidence being held back at trial, so as to have a legitimate case for an appeal.

Phil, as I understand it, you can not be tried for serious offences without professional legal representation.

If you fall into the category of habitual criminal or undeserving dick head then the rep is paid for by the taxpayer.
So I suppose it is possible to be thick and still have to pay for ones own defence, which in the legal profession means getting what you pay for. Either a team of three sharks who question everything or a lonely solicitor who just repeats what one has said but slightly louder. In both cases the defence get their say.

Magistrates court is perfunctory, mainly because all who appear there are either guilty as charged or very nearly and it isn't worth spending one's life savings arguing over the detail. Most of the details are handled before going into court.

Volty

As far as I understand it you are perfectly entitled to represent yourself in any court in this Country, mind you I'm not saying that that it's a very wise idea.

Only certain cases in this Country are heard by magistrates simply because they are very limited as to what punishments they can hand out. They can only try certain not guilty plea's because it is every Englishman's right to be tried by Jury or supposed to be. Consequently they only mostly hear guilty plea's if they come within the range of their sentencing. If they think you deserve a longer sentence they commit you for Crown Court sentencing.

By the way we have chosen to have cases heard on two occasions at the magistrates court and won the case both times.

As I understand things, all cases in this country initially go to Magistrates Court, some offences are tried there by JPs, more serious cases as Phil says are commited for trial at Crown Court. usually the acused give their name and address, charges are read out and a date is sorted for trial.