Forum menu
You may recall last year that a traveller - Henry Vincent was caught burgling a house in SE London with an accomplice. He threatened the owner of the house with a screwdriver, who in turn picked up a kitchen knife and Mr Vincent lost that argument with his life. It was ruled the pensioner had lawfully killed the burglar.
The pensioner was then rehomed somewhere else in the country, probably under a new identity due to him being a marked man
The comments on local news websites and facebook pages summed up the general feeling of if he hadn't broken into someones house then wouldn't be dead so no sympathy whatsoever. Of course there were comments from his 'family and friends' saying he'd make a wrong decision, needed money to feed his family etc, which got shot down immediately.
The Vincent family were career criminals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_family
I wonder, how many folk here would notice an 80kg weight on the back of their car in the dark? Whilst driving away from a crime they committed? Too many driving gods I think.
Bunch of criminals, sure, absolutely guilty and culpable. But murderers? That's quite a leap. And why we have trial by Jury.
Sadly I think this just about sums it up
Never ask the emotionally attached person of someone wo was killed what sort of sentence the killers should get as they will be the least objective person you could ever find.
Judge and Jury came up with the result and we go by that and retrial would only be if there was something very suspect in the case.
Sharia law innit? The victims do not get to pick the sentence in our legal system.
Sharia law innit? The victims do not get to pick the sentence in our legal system.
+1.
I think the Manslaughter verdict is correct, i just think its a shame they couldn't make a murder charge stick.
Whilst also not a lawyer this is incorrect. Since in this case all three were charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter.
I was not aware of that, thank you.
Judges have been more and more constrained over the years by sentencing guidelines, they don’t have a huge amount of leeway anymore.
I used to know a guy who was a JP. He told me that their baseline was to issue the minimum mandated sentence and if they want to increase that then they have to have an objective reason as to why. That was 15-20 years ago, mind.
Dear Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, David Blunkett and any other person in which has the power, moral value and sheer strength of character to right such a despicable wrong for our Country…
Fell at the first hurdle there really, didn't she.
independent judiciary with hundreds of years of jurisprudence ... mob rule and lynching from the nearest stout oak
So when it's a police officer killed we have an impeccable judicial system but when it's a black person our judiciary is systematically corrupt to the last person?
“they” presumably meaning every one of them, i.e. “they” are all the same
I don't believe it's possible to keep, for example, a group of slaves living in the open air on a caravan site without everyone on the site knowing what's going on. That makes the entire site culpable in my view. Or turning up a 4am having just "bought" a quad bike with your car covered in blood and guts.
they didn’t intend for him to die nor receive GBH level injuries,
You don't pull someone behind a car and not expect them to receive GBH levels of injury.
And why we have trial by Jury.
We also have trial by judge where there is a significant risk of jury interference, as clearly happened here.
You don’t pull someone behind a car and not expect them to receive GBH levels of injury.
Not intentionally, no. But that wasn't what happened here so stop pretending it was. He got caught up in the moving rope as they drove off, a tragic accident but one that can easily happen in industry (at sea).
We also have trial by judge where there is a significant risk of jury interference, as clearly happened here.
Clearly. If by that you mean the opinion of someone who is in no fit state to be objective about it.
If jury interference and judge intimidation are actually true then that clearly needs to be investigated and would have a bearing on the outcome.
You don’t pull someone behind a car and not expect them to receive GBH levels of injury.
That’s common sense though isn’t it? Unfortunately in law, common sense isn’t that common. The CPS and Police have to prove the intent - if they can’t prove intent then it can’t be murder. As unsavoury as that is, it’s the law.
From the CPS:
“The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent. The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case”
So the prosecution have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) what was in the mind of the killer as he carried out his actions. That is the difficulty here, Proving the mental element. So unless you have an admission of guilt or witnesses who can evidence that the killer appreciated that death or gbh level injury was a virtual certainty as a result of their actions, then you cannot prove murder.
Yep we’d have brought back hanging for bike thieves if victims had control over sentencing….
I'm all for that.
0% reoffending rate.
They didnt set out that evening intending to murder a police officer, but they did set out to steal a quad bike.
Without an admission from the perpetrators then I can't see a murder conviction being likely, and if the sentencing ends up being towards the higher end of the available scale then I think justice will have been served about as well as is practical under the circumstances.
16 years for the driver, 13 for the accomplices
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46544144
The judge told the court: "Sometimes death may be caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes it is very close to a case of murder in its seriousness. That is so, here."
He said the defendants' denials hey did they know they were dragging anything behind the car were "clearly false" and he rejected the idea they had shown remorse.
"You killed a talented and brave young police officer who was going above and beyond his duty in order to provide a public service," he told the killers.
"You did so because you have deliberately decided to expose any police officer that got in your way to a risk of death."
The maximum sentence was life. I'm a little disappointed with the drivers sentence, to be honest. But I'm happier that he serves at least 8 years for manslaughter than walks away having been found not guilty of a murder charge.
As unsavoury as that is, it’s the law.
Lord Goff, now deceased but previously the most senior judge, disagreed with the CPS interpretation of the law. I don't think the Supreme Court has ever ruled.
They didnt set out that evening intending to murder a police officer
That's irrelevant. As soon as the situation develops to make GBH likely the mens rea for murder is established.
the opinion of someone who is in no fit state to be objective
I meant the opinion of the Metropolitan police. The judge disagrees, but then he has to really because the alternative would be to abandon the trial with all the scheduling headaches that comes with.
that wasn’t what happened here so stop pretending it was.
The judge has got this one covered I feel. They knew exactly what they were doing and had no remorse about it.
walks away having been found not guilty of a murder charge.
Never an option because a murder charge always comes with a possible manslaughter conviction.
As soon as the situation develops to make GBH likely the mens rea for murder is established.
Unfortunately not; refer back to my earlier post - the bit in bold:
The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case”
That means that although you suspect the mens rea you must also prove it. You have to prove the offenders thought process, that they felt or thought “he’s gonna die or get seriously hurt if I don’t stop”. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mental element existed, which is a tough call by any standards.
The judge disagrees, but then he has to really because the alternative would be to abandon the trial with all the scheduling headaches that comes with.
Really? So he's not dealing with an obstruction of justice because *sigh* timetabling. I'd like to think the CPS has their shit together somewhat better than a mediocre head teacher.
They knew exactly what they were doing and had no remorse about it.
I'm not entirely convinced they could have and explained why. Doesn't mean I'm right but the fact is they didn't get convicted of murder regardless of any other Internet experts opinions.
The judge has made a ruling so anything else now is whataboutery, no? I expect they're better placed to express an opinion than anyone else here.
For my 2p, I'm surprised (but satisfied) that the "accessories" got such a heavy sentence. They could easily have gone "we begged him to stop, m'lud." Such price solidarity I guess, you make your bed.
For my 2p, I’m surprised (but satisfied) that the “accessories” got such a heavy sentence
I was too but I suppose they were all heavily involved in it and either of them could have done something to stop it but if they didn't admit to knowing/realising they were dragging a body down the road then nothing to stop.
Does anyone think there will be any consequences for the friends & families of the convicted after they tried to hide/destroy evidence etc?
Scum of the earth.
I’d like to think the CPS has their shit together somewhat better than a mediocre head teacher.
You need to read the Secret Barrister book referenced above. IIRC we spend less on the CPS than we do on giving pensioners free TV licences, and they most certainly haven't got their shit together.
Does anyone think there will be any consequences for the friends & families of the convicted after they tried to hide/destroy evidence etc?
Given the allegations being bandied about regarding the families and the jury, if there was anything to find, the Police would be all over it, quite rightly, as he was one of their own.
You have to prove the offenders thought process
You are misinterpreting Lord Steyn. What he said was that if the jury feel that there is a virtual certainty then they should convict for murder. Remember he was dealing with a shaken baby case where there may have been considerable doubt about intent.
He made no comment on the previous precedents that a jury is entitled to infer intent from actions. The usual example is that an aeroplane bomber will be charged with murder even if it is impossible to prove intent to do anything other than damage a plane.
In bike terms he said that if a bike has a dropper post then it's a mountain bike but he never said that all mountain bikes must have a dropper posts.
Does anyone think there will be any consequences for the friends & families
No. They will close ranks to protect their own and the police senior management will not want to stir up accusations of racial bias.
No. They will close ranks to protect their own and the police senior management will not want to stir up accusations of racial bias.
There's a coppers widow raising stink in the tabloids and going to the PM, it may not be as clearcut as you think
I meant the opinion of the Metropolitan police.
You mean CPS, the Police don't get to decide whether to prosecute nor what the final charge is. The CPS will look at the case and use their (more) objective judgement to work out what makes sense given the strength of the evidence.
You need to read the Secret Barrister book referenced above. IIRC we spend less on the CPS than we do on giving pensioners free TV licences, and they most certainly haven’t got their shit together.
On a high profile case like this, they'll have spared no resource - obviously the extra resource will have been taken from other low profile cases which no one cares about.
There’s a coppers widow raising stink in the tabloids and going to the PM, it may not be as clearcut as you think
Luckily we have a reasonably independent judiciary, unless they can show abuse of process eg jury tampering, not a lot will happen.
You can't re-try them for murder without substantial new evidence coming to light specifically the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence.