I appreciate they didn’t mean to kill him but given it was a pretty severe attack involving kicking on the ground the sentences look quite light, to me. IIRC you get automatic parole at the 50pc point so these guys will serve ~3 years.

Discuss.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34219165

Don’t tell me what to do.

Sentencing is generally too light these days and the 50% parole is nonsense. So I suppose my point is these sentences are very light for killing someone but they are consistent with what’s awarded. Thankfully we are not like South Africa where you can shoot someone dead and spend only a few months in jail.

I wonder how getting drunk and giving somebody a pasting does not count as intent (murder)? Seems to fit in along the same lines as those running causing road collisions because they couldn’t ge bothered following the Highway Code.

I wonder how getting drunk and giving somebody a pasting does not count as intent (murder)?

Because when you punch someone, you don’t usually intend to kill them. I have a close connection to this particular case, and before I heard all the evidence, I had that throw-away-the-key attitude.

But, having heard all of the evidence, the guilty parties were of pretty good character. Initial press reports that the officers were targeted proved to be unfounded.

I’m not saying they should have got off lightly – they kicked off with some complete strangers and ended up killing my OH’s good friend, but they didn’t ‘intend’ or plan to kill him.

I wonder how getting drunk and giving somebody a pasting does not count as intent (murder)?

Because pubs would then be near empty as every jack the lad was put away for throwing a drunken punch, regardless of whether it landed or not.

The ratio of fights that result in death must be lower than car accidents. No one thinks the most extreme consequence would actually happen.

We bitch in here about the linking of sentencing to outcomes in cycle-related incidents (punishment pass, near miss, no harm done, therefore a serious crime) as opposed to the intent or risk of harm. I guess this case is the other side of that coin.

Should have been stiffer. Had they not been police the confrontation wouldn’t have happened.

I’ll bet the sentences would.have been harsher had the police been in uniform. Yet as they were targeted in the full knowledge they were police, whether they were on duty or not, it amounts to the same thing IMO.

It is scary though how a ‘fight’, however innocuous, can very easily end up with a death.

IIRC they directly targeted them because they were coppers and then attacked them

given that, and the consequences, I am surprised they got away with it as they certainly appeared to intend IMHO to give him a serious serious kicking

Seems excessively light to me.

IIRC they directly targeted them because they were coppers and then attacked them

apart from the bit where they didnt.

We bitch in here about the linking of sentencing to outcomes in cycle-related incidents (punishment pass, near miss, no harm done, therefore a serious crime) as opposed to the intent or risk of harm. I guess this case is the other side of that coin.

Problem is there is an expectation in everyone that if someone dies of an act the person at fault should see a higher punishment than if no-one had died. This leads to reckless or dangerous acts being seen as more ‘acceptable’ where the outcome of death is low or unexpected (in the eyes of the general public).

I dont think its great to be honest, but you cant balance it as there would be outcry if a ‘killer’ didnt get a harsher punishment.

I don’t see why it would be worse but they did target them because they were rozzers. Unless you believe the story that the term ‘officer’ was just a turn of phrase.

Also IIRC you can attack someone with such recklessness that it’s considered murder if they die, and in this case they were charged with murder but were found not guilty. Presumably because the jury thought they weren’t quite reckless enough. It must have been a near run thing. (If my memory is correct about ‘recklessness’.)

They weren’t targeted as coppers.

Officer was proven to be a term of phrase.

For you to believe that you’d need to believe that they addressed them using the term ‘officer’ as a figure of speach,. I’ve never heard anyone use that term in that way.

Taylor had taken issue with Pc Doyle as he made his way to another bar, asking him directly and in an “unsettling” manner, “are you having a good evening officer?” – yet claiming to not know he was in the force.
Despite being told to go away, Taylor declined, repeating the word “officer” and saying “that’s not very nice, officer”.

They were not convicted of murder (probably) because they could not be proven to have had an intention to kill or cause grevious bodily harm to the person that was killed: http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/criminal-law/murder.php

Recklessness is a different concept.

It’s difficult to see how the sentence fits the consequence or even the crime. I’m not underestimating serving 3yrs but to my mind we ought to be deterring reckless acts of assault with severe sentences. The only difference between driving home drunk and killing no one due to your reduced capacity to drive ams killing someone enroute can be luck BUT we ought to be holding such offenders responsible for the possible range of outcomes of their actions. Death caused by assault including trauma to the head is a foreseeable outcome even if rare. I don’t imagine there will be a tangible reduction in assaults based on this high profile case which is a failing of our judicial system that needs rectifying to help negate anti social behaviour.

apart from the bit where they didnt.

Well someone, lord knows how, believes that they used the phrase officer [ over and over again] as some sort of non copper reference

I doubt you will find many who will believe that and I certainly dont.

FWIW i did not know it had been termed a generic greeting in the trial.
I

1) there is a difference between “targeting” someone because they are police officer and taunting them (in some not quite explicable way) for being a police office once you are already in some sort of confrontation with them

2) the offenders could have got a life sentence and I don’t think it would have affected the assault date whatsoever. When two groups of men square up for a fight outside a pub, they don’t discuss the latest sentence handed down for manslaughter

3) causing someone’s death recklessly is pretty much what manslaughter is designed for. If you want to prosecute every person for the possible effects of the actions rather than what was intended, then you have to prosecute every assault as murder, because it’s always possible an assault could cause someone to die.

1) Either they knew they were coppers and they got into a confrontation with them deliberately due to this or they got into a confrontation with them and they use the term officer as some sort of universal greeting and it just so happened they were coppers.

Its really not hard to work out the more credible view here as I have never heard officer used as greeting and certainly not a mocking one.

2) i agree

3) it depends – if I punch you once I may be able to say I reasonably did not anticipate death or serious injury. However if I punch you to the ground with the help of mate then we both kick the shit out of you it may be harder to argue we did not see death as a possible outcome of our assault. I think you would also require a death to prosecute as murder.

1) no, there is at least one other option: they got into the confrontation for some reason other than the deceased and his friends being police officers (A called B’s pint a poof), and the offender was trying to wind the deceased and his friends up by making some snide reference to them being police officers.

Fwiw I think that BBC article was all over the place in terms of who claimed what.

3) right but the person I’m responding to was saying people should be punished for the possible consequences of their actions, not the actual, intended, probable or foreseeable consequences…

3) I wasn’t suggesting the punishment assault with a possibility of death should be identical to assault causing death BUT there needs to be a greater recognition of the possible consequences ie maybe a narrowing of the gap between the two.

RIP

one other option is they got into the confrontation for some reason other than the deceased and his friends being police officers

Which seems highly unlikely since the first contact they had was with the words “are you having a good evening officer”.

I don’t, personally, think it makes any difference to the severity of the crime but its really not credible to think the chose these victims for any other reason than the fact they were policemen and AFAIK no other reason was given by the culprits.

When I did jury service 2 younger people advised their decision was based on believing something contrary to the evidence agreed by both sides. When told this was inappropriate they maintained their position. It’s a less than perfect system though some kind of qualifying test that you can understand the judge’s directions would be an idea. …

no, there is at least one other option: they got into the confrontation for some reason other than the deceased and his friends being police officers (A called B’s pint a poof), and the offender was trying to wind the deceased and his friends up by making some snide reference to them being police officers.

The defence argued successfully that they did not use it to mean they were coppers [ well according to this thread i did not double check] they used it as one would use mate or pal or chief or fella etc
I assumed , incorrectly it appears, that this was the view you were putting forth.

Forgive me, sorry*
Yes it could have started over anything but it seems it started with them saying having a nice evening officer so it is seems certain to me they knew they were plod.

re 3) forgive me again 😳

IMHO if you target plod** you do deserve a stiffer sentence. We need to protect those who [ generally bad apples aside] protect us from , frankly, people like that.

* Everything I write sounds sarcastic that is genuine.

** To be clear i mean the police an ddont use this word as one uses officer 🙄

The police downloaded thousands of text messages from the assailants’ phones, and the evidence did prove that, amongst their own group, they were in the habit of calling each other “captain”, “chief”, “officer” etc. it might seem odd, but read the nickname thread to get a better understanding of how odd blokes can be!

My OH was out on that night out with Neil, so I’m the last person to defend their actions, but they were all “non-noms” – not known to police – so they had no way of knowing who they were kicking off with. We’ll never know the exact reasons for the altercation or what was said and why – that’s all lost within the drunken sands of time, but the guilty parties are highly unlikely to pose a future threat and have to carry the burden of what happened when a drunken night out went tits up. Sentencing reflects this.

Whatever sentence they got, it wouldn’t bring Neil back. RIP.

Thanks Gatsby, clears up the “officer” thing.

Thoughts to his friends and family. Whilst even for people with no previous the sentencing seems light to me – no sentence will bring this man back. Every untimely death is a tragedy – no matter what job people do.