On What Planet Should This Savage Have His Term Reduced?

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 11:56 Fri 17th Feb 2017 | News
43 Answers
Some leeching lawyer proclaims the minimum term is excessive, right oh, knock for year off! What is this? Compare the These judges are getting out of hand.


1 to 20 of 43rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
* four years, doh!, naffing keyboard!
hard to say, since the story gives no details; the fact that he pleaded guilty may well have been taken into account.
I don't understand why it was reduced but it's still a minimum of 23 years...he could serve much longer and hopefully he will.
// In delivering his ruling, appeal judge Lord Turnbull said of Leathem: "The appellant in the present case engaged in a brutal, savage and frenzied attack on a young defenceless child before attempting to cover up his actions.

"In the course of that attack, he appears to have struck her in the region of 146 times". //

..and he then goes on to reduce the sentence. Unbelievable.
He struck her 146 times and they reduce the sentence???
The lawyer is not 'leeching' - part of the fabric of our justice system is the right of appeal if it is felt it is justified.

In law, the circumstances of each individual case are taken into account, and that is what has happened here.
The right of appeal is paramount but when these lawyers come out with such nonsense as " he left the body where it could be easily discovered" as if he was doing everybody a favour is quite frankly ludicrous.
Totally agree Vulcan. They're talking as though he should have got a gold star!
We need to understand that it is the job of the defence barrister to do what she/he can to help the client, and all people accused are entitled under law to present a defence or mitigation. Having said that, the lawyers do sometimes say the daftest things, like 'he needed the money so he went thieving'. There isn't a link for that, I made it up.
But like most people perhaps I would think that the original sentence in this case should stand.
Muntin - I am absolutely in agreement with both points you make -

the fact that the convicted man is entitled to an appeal, correct, and the fact that the appeal was upheld, incorrect.
Low lifes attract each other TTT and on top of that for some reason liberal lefties in their rose tinted specs are always ready to support them.
read the transcript of the judgment here:-

not easy reading, but it would appear the original sentence was out of step with recent sentencing in similar cases.
-- answer removed --
YMB - //Low lifes attract each other TTT and on top of that for some reason liberal lefties in their rose tinted specs are always ready to support them. //

I would not suggest that you can bracket together criminals who assault people, and the barristers who study law for years and graduate with a degree.

But since you are stereotyping, you seem keen to assume that anyone who stands by the rule of law being applied equally and fairly to everyone is simply a 'liberal leftie' - I believe in fair application of the law, and I am neither.
Rura Penthe.
Thank you for that contribution Andy. As a bit of a liberal lefty myself I would have tried to write something similar, but I had mislaid my rose tinted reading glasses.
Yet again I have to point out that this is just a reduction in the 'Tariff' the sentence is still 'Life'.
The Tariff is the MINIMUM time that must be served before the offender can even begin the process of applying to the parole board.
It is very unlikely that the parole board will consider his application at the first attempt, it will probably need several more attempts taking years.
Even if he is eventually freed it is only 'On Licence' he can still be recalled to jail if he breaks the terms of his 'Licence' at any time for the rest of his life. In this sense Life really does mean life.
Slightly out of context but still rings true. “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot.
All I can say is, if the best that a lawyer can come up with, in spite of going to university and spending years studying law, is "he left the body where it could easily be found" as a mitigating excuse then he/she is also making a mockery of the law.
Vulcan - any lawyer can only work with the material the case gives him - it may be seriously dubious, as it is here, but if that is all he has, then he will go in to bat with it.

1 to 20 of 43rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

On What Planet Should This Savage Have His Term Reduced?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.