Sunday, 29 May 2011

Another Odd Judgement…

Louise, who had lived in Haslingden, died after being repeatedly stabbed with a knife and beaten with a large piece of wood in a secluded wooded area behind Towneley Hall, Burnley.

The former Haslingden High School and Accrington and Rossendale College student was living at the Elizabeth Street Project hostel, Burnley, at the time she was murdered.

Before a two-week trial at Preston Crown Court in December 2009, Maw pleaded guilty to murder.

The jury later heard Wood had recruited Maw to kill Louise, who had been ‘annoying him’.

Wood was put behind bars for at least 23 years and Maw was handed a minimum term of 18 years and 35 weeks.
Yes, that’s right. The man who organised it got more than the man who carried it out. Shades of this case, albeit not even an accident, this time, but premeditated murder.

He appealed. And lost. And his hired thug got even less!
Lord Justice Pitchford refused to reduce Wood’s term in light of his key role in instigating the offence.

However, he cut Maw’s term to 16 years and eight months to reflect his guilty plea, youth, and immaturity.
This has enraged the family, who have set up a group to protest their poor wee lamb’s brutal treatment at the hands of the justice system.
Yesterday Gillian Phillips, who spearheaded the FAWN campaign, vowed to continue to fight on Wood’s behalf.

She said: “We will never stop until the truth eventually comes out.”
In the comments, this theme continues:
freeanthonywoodnow, says...

Anthony had a trial that was rushed through court, where all the evidence available to prove his innocence was not used. On the evidence provided, the jury had no choice but to bring in their guilty verdict. The justice system in England prevents us from challenging this.

We feel sorry for the memory of Louise in that the person who bludgeoned her to death actually gets his sentence reduced but her friend Anthony gets penalised for trying to stop him.

We would like to thank all Anthony’s family, friends and supporters for their support and belief in him.

We will continue in this fight for justice for Anthony and Louise and will never stop until the truth eventually comes out.

Anyone wanting to show support to Anthony can do so via freeanthonywoodnow.c

Anyone else affected by the Joint Enterprise Law can contact either ourselves via the website or the joint enterprise website.
I won't directly link to the sites, as I don't wish to have it appear that I support their 'cause' (plus, it's an appallingly designed website - he should get a few more years for that alone!).


Shinar's Basket Case said...

"The man who organised it got more than the man who carried it out. "

And rightly so. Contracting a murder is a worse crime than the deed its self.

" “We will never stop until the truth eventually comes out.”" Again rightly so. They may be wrong and misguided in THIS case but its important that people protest and campaign if they think there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Angry Exile said...

Thinking along similar lines to SBC here. Hiring a killer to take someone's life for you is morally the same as using a gun or a knife to do the job yourself. The only difference is that a tool can't choose not to do it and whoever is hired can. I don't know that I'd say one is worse but I certainly feel the killer and the one who hires the killer are both as bad as each other, and that both deserve to be sentenced as if they did the deed themselves.

Shinar's Basket Case said...

Angry Exile, contracting the kill MUST be held to be the greater crime...

...otherwise the divorce courts would go out of business.

Angry Exile said...

Heh. But seriously, it's not always about divorce is it? People have hired other people to kill for them for all kinds of reasons, both for wanting that person dead and for not doing it personally. Maybe they want to be elsewhere for alibi purposes, maybe they're on remand or something and can't be there, maybe they want an experienced killer and maybe they're just squeamish at the thought of doing ti themselves. When it comes down to it it's like using the contract killer as a weapon, except that as a thinking and reasoning being (yeah, I know, some more than others) we hold the killer responsible for their actions in a way that obviously can't be applied to knives, guns, candlesticks, lead pipes and bits of rope. So I agree with you that the one who contracts out a murder should be sentenced harshly - as harshly as if they did the actual killing themselves I'd say - but I don't see how killing because someone asked you to is any kind of mitigation. The killer could have said no, could have not followed through, could have warned the victim, could have tipped off the police instead, but if they go ahead with the murder instead they're acting of their own volition and are every bit as culpable.

JuliaM said...

"...and that both deserve to be sentenced as if they did the deed themselves."

Equal sentences would be a little more acceptable.