News1 min ago
Sentencing gone barmy
5 Years for systematically killing a 3 year old epileptic toddler ? Can be released after 2.5 years on licence ? The world has gone mad. There, I've got it off of my chest !! Sorry.
FBG40
FBG40
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fbg40. 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.
-- answer removed --
em, this defendant was not only charged but indicted for murder, was he not? The jury had that count to consider, but acquitted him of murder and convicted him of manslaughter.
In that case, blame our fellow citizens on the jury (or the judge, if he ruled that there was not sufficient evidence for any reasonable jury to convict of murder and therefore directed the jury to acquit on that count). Don't blame the CPS ; though, if they did not charge murder that would have been the decision of senior prosecuting counsel, almost certainly a QC, and not a member of CPS staff, in any such case; blame the jury or the judge. You think it was murder. The court, which heard the evidence, decided that this defendant did not intend either to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm resulting in the death, and therefore was guilty of murder. It doesn't look as though the defendant pleaded 'diminished responsibility', a kind of temporary madness which reduces murder to manslaughter, but only that he had not had the previously cited intents. Either way, he was acquitted of murder. To argue that it was murder is pointless and against the evidence as the jury or judge found it.
In that case, blame our fellow citizens on the jury (or the judge, if he ruled that there was not sufficient evidence for any reasonable jury to convict of murder and therefore directed the jury to acquit on that count). Don't blame the CPS ; though, if they did not charge murder that would have been the decision of senior prosecuting counsel, almost certainly a QC, and not a member of CPS staff, in any such case; blame the jury or the judge. You think it was murder. The court, which heard the evidence, decided that this defendant did not intend either to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm resulting in the death, and therefore was guilty of murder. It doesn't look as though the defendant pleaded 'diminished responsibility', a kind of temporary madness which reduces murder to manslaughter, but only that he had not had the previously cited intents. Either way, he was acquitted of murder. To argue that it was murder is pointless and against the evidence as the jury or judge found it.
Here is more information regarding this case.
http
Apparently the mother's former father in law Trevor Lawrie, tried unsuccessfully to mount a legal challenge against the Crown Prosecution Service after they decided not to charge Henry.
/// Retired construction boss Trevor Lawrie, 64, said he would go to the High Court in a renewed bid to force Miss Henry to face justice. ///
/// He is convinced that his former daughter-in-law, who was cautioned for perverting the course of justice, played a role in the killing. ///
/// And he said more should have been done after Miss Henry admitted physically abusing her other young son four years
ago. ///
How did this pathetic example of a mother manage to get off 'scot free'?
http
Apparently the mother's former father in law Trevor Lawrie, tried unsuccessfully to mount a legal challenge against the Crown Prosecution Service after they decided not to charge Henry.
/// Retired construction boss Trevor Lawrie, 64, said he would go to the High Court in a renewed bid to force Miss Henry to face justice. ///
/// He is convinced that his former daughter-in-law, who was cautioned for perverting the course of justice, played a role in the killing. ///
/// And he said more should have been done after Miss Henry admitted physically abusing her other young son four years
ago. ///
How did this pathetic example of a mother manage to get off 'scot free'?
No doubt there wasn't the evidence, aog. I expect that, if the man issued proceedings in the magistrates' court, to have the woman committed for trial in due course, the DPP would issue a nolle prosequi to put an end to it.
Always open to you to try it, if you feel that strongly. I don't know of any rule that you have to know anything about the case or be related to the accused in any way. Doesn't seem to stop the Society of Black Lawyers, so why should any of us be prevented?
Always open to you to try it, if you feel that strongly. I don't know of any rule that you have to know anything about the case or be related to the accused in any way. Doesn't seem to stop the Society of Black Lawyers, so why should any of us be prevented?
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.