The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is reviewing the sentences handed down to two of the killers of Stephen Lawrence after a request from a member of the public.It may well be that this is going to be a 10 second glance at the file, a spot of lunch and then a 'well, it might not satisfy anyone, but the law is the law' type of review. After all, there's (supposedly) a new sheriff in town.
Gary Dobson, 36, and David Norris, 35, were sentenced to minimum terms of 15 and 14 years respectively for murdering Lawrence. The jail terms reflected their ages at the time of the killing – both men were juveniles – and the sentencing guidelines at the time of the murder in 1993.
Who wants to trust the ConDems with this, though? Anyone? Bueller?
16 comments:
"after all, when you've already messed about with the country's law once just to satisfy one family" ...
Interesting to note how the law was changed to satisfy the Lawrence family ..
Also interesting to note the sheer time, effort & money put into finding the alleged killers ..
National disgrace that the same expenditure, diligence & vigour weren't applied to the questionable deths of FOUR young soldiers at Deepcut Barracks ..
But then .. I don't suppose any of their mothers gave birth to a ready-made saint ..
Apols .. should obviously read "deaths" ..
"Sticky finger" trouble .. ;)
I feel a letter writing campaign coming on Julia. I had no idea it only took one letter from 'a member of the public' to force him to review a sentence...
Don't you feel a letter writing campaign coming on?
I reckon between us we could have him reviewing sentences until his eyes come out on stalks.....
Ah no Anna, don't waste your time. You see all those crimes against the native population (the white Christian bit anyway) don't deserve any examination, especially when they are committed by certain sections of the population (preaching not only to the choir here, but the bishop, I know).
Whilst we've all noticed the penchant for the press to forget (omit/cover up) the ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators of so many crimes (Hey it's only the murder/rape/ sexual grooming/assault of a worthless white person after all), I've noticed a strange fixation here in Cumbria. As elsewhere, if you belong to 'the religion of peace' (Gag) or certain nationalities/ethnicities (funny how they do, if mentioned at all, seem to be 'Asians') it never gets mentioned, however if you are white and have ever served in the military (even if it was for two years national service forty years ago) it will be blazen across the headline "ex-soldier commits... (parking offence, littering, etc.).
Is this just a local or a national attempt at painting our troops as 'terrible people' or am I just being an overly sensitive, biased, reactionary white male again ;-)
Wit makes a lovely rare appearance on Gadget, courtesy of JuliaM:
"….well, that tells you all you need to know about Hackney, doesn’t it?"
Able .. you & I are on the same page of the same hymn book .. ;)
I agree that a letter writing campaign to Ministers or MP's is doomed to failure before it even begins .. they'll simply invest in industrial-strength shredders (at the Taxpayers expense, of course) ..
The only thing which will concentrate their minds and make their eyes water, is when they start coming third in elections & have to face the prospect of finding a proper job ..
My vote will go the the Party which lives up to its promise of returning my country to me .. and I don't care how "racist" or "facist" the opposition paints them ..
Kipling had it right in his poem "When the Saxon began to hate" ..
It might well be that the cameron creature changes 'the law' to retrospectively re-introduce hanging for ' certain serious crimes.'
@ The Travelling Toper ..
There's as much likelihood of that happening as there is of any of these "threats", "demands" or "promises" coming to fruition ..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065491/David-Cameron-I-end-sicknote-culture-acts-conveyor-belt-life-benefits.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054931/David-Camerons-plans-fine-criminals-benefits-handouts.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083055/Cameron-pledges-possible-stop-EU-members-doing-business-Britains-back.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082883/NHS-care-David-Cameron-says-nurses-told-talk-patients-hospital-wards.html
The pillock is a failed PR man .. a "flim-flammer" .. He might talk the talk .. but is incapable of walking the walk ..
He's got more "rabbit" than Watership Down .. more "front" than Blackpool .. and is about as much use as a spare armpit ..
Ohhh...! Not Again!! (holds head in hands). Is there any point in helpfully pointing out (again) that the law was NOT changed "...just to satisfy one family"?
Probably, I am wasting my time...
Probably no point in suggesting that finally, two of the guilty party have been convicted either, and that has got to be worth something to somebody... or maybe no one on this forum has lost someone in similarly atrocious circumstances.
I bask in your collective display of humanity...
"Mr Justice Treacy, the trial judge, acknowledged on Wednesday that the sentences he was handing down were lower than those available now. His decision-making process will now be examined by lawyers for the attorney general after a member of the public complained that the jail terms were too lenient."
Perhaps those same lawyers might consult an expert at a certain judges sentencing council. This one perhaps:
"Treacy is one of the country's most knowledgeable judges on sentencing. He sits on the sentencing council, which prepares sentencing guidelines for use by judges in England and Wales."
The fix is in, even if Treacy recuses himself.
Is there any point in helpfully pointing out (again) that the law was NOT changed "...just to satisfy one family"?
Please see Macpherson Report ch.47 Recommendations:
38. That consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.
Followed by statement from Jack Straw, summarized by the BBC on Thursday, 25 March, 1999
Further consideration
38. That consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.
Accepted - Referred to the Law Commission to consider - will take some time, but the Home Office will discuss the practicalities and priorities with the Law Commission with the aim of establishing by the end of April a clear timetable for this consideration.
Macpherson was only considering the Lawrence case, which of course had shot its bolt by then because of the intervention of Mike Mansfield and Matrix.
It is inconceiveable that an experienced advocate like Mansfield had not warned the Lawrences that doing so would bring the double jeopardy convention in to play. Private criminal prosecutions are rare, and they are even more rarely launched with a prospect of conviction since the CPS has the legal right to take them over and discontinue them. The purpose of such an action is usually PR and Mansfield knew it.
Although the case collapsed, it achieved a public enquiry, which was technically a very good result by Mansfield. However, I doubt that he expected the recommendation the report would make.
It should be noted that a liberal lawyer and a Labour government (Mansfield has always been careful not to align politically) managed to create the excuse to remove a safeguard which, had it been a Conservative government trying to do so, would have led to screams of "Fascist!"
@Frankie
"Ohhh...! Not Again!! (holds head in hands). Is there any point in helpfully pointing out (again) that the law was NOT changed "...just to satisfy one family"?"
Put your head in a bark chipper for all I care - the facts are clear, the law was changed for this cause celebre of the racism industry :
"The Lawrence murder played a key part and Sir William Macpherson recommended the law be changed following his inquiry in to the case in 1999."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8982608/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-change-in-double-jeopardy-law-allowed-Gary-Dobson-prosecution.html
Sorry - messed up the BBC link.
Here it is.
"National disgrace that the same expenditure, diligence & vigour weren't applied to the questionable deths of FOUR young soldiers at Deepcut Barracks .."
Damn good point. I guess there was something about those grieving relatives that fell on deaf ears.
"I feel a letter writing campaign coming on Julia. I had no idea it only took one letter from 'a member of the public' to force him to review a sentence..."
Well, quite! Although, as Able points out, I suspect the treatment THOSE letters get will be exactly as I first suspected.
"...however if you are white and have ever served in the military (even if it was for two years national service forty years ago) it will be blazen across the headline "ex-soldier commits... (parking offence, littering, etc.). "
Yup, I've noticed that too, most egregiously in the case of the guy whose dog mauled a woman to death.
"Probably, I am wasting my time..."
Probably, since you are always countered (as you are here by WoaR at 23:17) yet never seem to take it on board.
So, I wonder just what it's worth to you to keep trying to play it down?
"Probably no point in suggesting that finally, two of the guilty party have been convicted either, and that has got to be worth something to somebody... or maybe no one on this forum has lost someone in similarly atrocious circumstances. "
I thought our system of justice was BETTER for not taking undue account of the wishes of grieving relatives, since they are hardly likely to have justice in mind?
That said, there are plenty of other grieving relatives out there who would love a 10th of the coverage this pair got in the media.
Why didn't they get it, I wonder?
Well..! that's me told... (I don't think). Despite what some of you clearly believe, the law on Double Jeopardy WAS NOT changed solely on the basis of the failed outcome of the private prosecution in the Stephen Lawrence case. McPhearson took evidence on other cases as well and, you all seem to forget, a public enquiry does not result in the law of the land being changed as an automatic result.
A 'recommendation' is exactly that, no more or less. This was referred to the Law Commission for 'consideration', but, again, the Law Commission do not make the law!
For example: The Law Commission made umpteen extremely practical recommendations to reform the law on the diminished responsibility defence to murder over the years, but nothing happened for decades, until the recent ammendments within the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 52 years of trying for reform, along with other interested parties.
@Julia M: WoaR's 'evidence' that the Lawrence case was the sole reason for a change in the law is therefore sadly lacking in actual substance as to its persuasiveness, and for this reason I just cannot 'take it on board' because it is not evidence of anything. As you appear to be so hot on the subject of actual evidence (or at least where the Lawrence case is concerned) I wonder at you quoting from it.
Do you not all think that sometimes, and I am sure we can all think of examples, where a case or an event comes along that gets into the public domain and will not just conveniently 'go away'. Such a case is the Lawrence case. Like it or not.
Another example of such an event would be the Milly Dowler alleged hacking of voicemails, even though, with hindsight, it appears that maybe her voicemails were not hacked... This example of alleged press inhumanity was, seemingly, the catlyst for the Leveson review of the press, the final straw, as it were. Again, rightly or wrongly.
Finally, you are all also clearly forgetting the fact that there has been a retrial in the Lawrence case ONLY because new and compelling evidence was found. I have been around long enough to realise the benefits of technology in solving heinous cases, like that of Colin Pitchfork, for example, whose conviction only arose out of the mass screening of DNA (the keeping of which would also, apparently, have the libertarians amongst us screaming in outrage) or in the Scottish case of Robert Black, where 'similar fact' evidence, and disclosure of Black's criminal past was disclosed to the jury and was used to convict Black of three further child murders. The disclosure of such material to a court, where appropriate, is another area where the law has been changed, arguably for the better.
Those of you on this forum who rail against apparent stupidity where the law is concerned,can hardly therefore complain when something practical and reasonable is done to reform it, as it has been in my examples.
When such evidence is available and is compelling, I think it is right that the potential defendants are put to the question of their guilt, heard by a jury of their peers, who may, or may not ultimately be convinced or their guilt.
Post a Comment