GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #10

[jessie]

Oh - it seems from the Cambridge News site that Simon Russell Flint has been addressing the court in mitigation this afternoon, I didn't realise that was going to happen - did we know?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/murderer-ian-stewart-likely-spend-12642079

ETA Sorry, I've been trying to copy it but the page keeps becoming unresponsive. Perhaps someone else can manage it.

The fiancé of wealthy Royston author Helen Bailey who today was found guilty of her murder will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars, a court has heard.

Ian Stewart of Baldock Road in Royston, slowly drugged Ms Bailey for months with sleeping drug Zopiclone before murdering her and dumping her body, together with her dog Boris, into the cess pit below the garage at the couple's £1.5million Royston home.

Stewart denied murder, fraud, preventing a lawful burial and three counts of perverting the course of justice – but jurors found him guilty today (Wednesday) after a six week trial at St Albans Crown C


Jurors took less than six hours to reach a decision, with Stewart facing sentence at 10am tomorrow (Thursday).

Judge Andrew Bright, who has overseen the six-week trial, made it clear that if Stewart declines to leave his prison cell, he will be sentenced in his absence.

Stewart’s defence barrister, Simon Russell Flint, began his mitigation in the case on Wednesday afternoon.

READ MORE
Probe launched into death of Ian Stewart's late wife Diane after he was found guilty of Helen Bailey murder
He told Judge Bright that Stewart’s behaviour does not warrant a whole life order, the case does not fall in the categories for exceptionally serious offending, and none of Stewart’s subsequent actions played any actual part in the commission of Ms Bailey’s murder.

Mr Russell Flint said: “As a matter of logic and common sense, there must have been another or indeed mixed motives for Ms Bailey’s killing.”

Judge Andrew Bright said Mr Russell Flint would have “a hard job” to persuade him the murder of Ms Bailey was not for financial gain.

READ MORE
Officer in charge of Helen Bailey murder inquiry said there were 'no winners' despite Ian Stewart's conviction
He added: “One can talk about the insurance policy, which would have matured on Helen’s death, to which Stewart would have been the beneficiary.

“It was plan to me that Stewart saw he was going to be a substantial financial beneficiary in her death so in my view, this is a murder for gain.

 

[Moll]

[FONT=&amp]

[FONT=&amp]

Thanks, Jessie, I was struggling to do it.​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]

 

[jenspired]

oh - it seems from the cambridge news site that simon russell flint has been addressing the court in mitigation this afternoon, i didn't realise that was going to happen - did we know?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/murderer-ian-stewart-likely-spend-12642079

ETA sorry, i've been trying to copy it but the page keeps becoming unresponsive. Perhaps someone else can manage it.

Jurors took less than six hours to reach a decision, with Stewart facing sentence at 10am tomorrow (Thursday). Judge Andrew Bright, who has overseen the six-week trial, made it clear that if Stewart declines to leave his prison cell, he will be sentenced in his absence. Stewart’s defence barrister, Simon Russell Flint, began his mitigation in the case this afternoon (February 22).

He told Judge Bright that Stewart’s behaviour does not warrant a whole life order, the case does not fall in the categories for exceptionally serious offending, and none of Stewart’s subsequent actions played any actual part in the commission of Ms Bailey’s murder. Mr Russell Flint said: “As a matter of logic and common sense, there must have been another or indeed mixed motives for Ms Bailey’s killing.”

Judge Andrew Bright said Mr Russell Flint would have “a hard job” to persuade him the murder of Ms Bailey was not for financial gain.
He added: “One can talk about the insurance policy, which would have matured on Helen’s death, to which Stewart would have been the beneficiary. “It was plain to me that Stewart saw he was going to be a substantial financial beneficiary in her death so in my view, this is a murder for gain. “There could have been mixed motives – but money and the fact he would benefit financially is the most obvious and principal reason why he did what he did.”

Mr Russell Flint said there were two identified aggravating factors in the case – a significant degree of planning or premeditation, and the concealment of Ms Bailey’s body. He added: “As to the offences, there’s little I can now say. “Stewart acknowledges that he has burdened both the family of Helen Bailey and his own family with incalculable loss, a lifetime of misery, sorrow and suffering, and he will have a long time to reflect upon the consequences of those actions. “He is a man of impeccable character, and if the court adopts the starting point of 30 years, the likelihood is that given his state of health, the sentence has an effect of a whole life order in any event.

“There is every prospect and likelihood that Stewart will end his days behind bars. “All we can do is ask the court to pass such a sentence as is appropriate.” Stewart was seen to shake his head in the dock as the verdicts were read to him in front of a full public gallery, which included his own two sons.


Helen's brother John Bailey, who gave evidence against Stewart in the trial, was also present to hear the guilty verdicts. The prosecution said Stewart murdered Ms Bailey, “probably by suffocation”, between 10.51am and 2.30pm on Monday April 11, 2016. Stewart reported the author missing on April 15. Her body was found by police three months later.

The 56-year-old claimed that two men named just Joe and Nick killed and disposed of Ms Bailey’s body in the cesspit in a bid to frame him. His version of events was rubbished by the prosecution, who stated that Stewart used two old friends, Joe Cippullo and Nick Cooke, as inspiration to create an image of the 'kidnappers'. In his closing speech, prosecutor Stuart Trimmer told jurors that Stewart “preyed” on the then “vulnerable” and recently widowed Ms Bailey online, before slowly drugging her and killing her in a financially motivated murder.

Impeccable?! Despicable more like!

 

[TheRisenBishop]

Oh - it seems from the Cambridge News site that Simon Russell Flint has been addressing the court in mitigation this afternoon, I didn't realise that was going to happen - did we know?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/murderer-ian-stewart-likely-spend-12642079

ETA Sorry, I've been trying to copy it but the page keeps becoming unresponsive. Perhaps someone else can manage it.

Yes, although Russell-Flint hasn't done much of a job in mitigation. He admitted he couldn't say anything much about the disposal of the body and proceeded to say nothing at all!

The Judge has already told him he considers it murder for gain. Add in the lengthy premeditation, horrifically callous disposal, the massive waste of resources, the cruel and unnecessary torment of the families, the blaming of Helen's husband, the total and utter lack of remorse and the one thing that Russell-Flint has got right throughout this whole trial is that IS will indeed die in prison.

Judge Bright won't take any chances, this dangerous animal will be given the maximum 30 year tariff.

 

[MissTwiddle]

https://www.facebook.com/C5News/

Thank you Alyce, that was well worth a listen. Xx

 

[jenspired]

This is a lovely read too from a lady who interviewed her: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/i-thought-john-just-come-12634989

 

[ColourPurple]

A reminder of aggravating and mitigating factors

Having set the minimum term, the judge will then take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors that may
amend the minimum term either up or down.
The judge may also reduce the minimum term to take account of a guilty plea. The final minimum term will take
into account all the factors of the case and can be of any length.
Aggravating and mitigating factors


Aggravating factors are things that make an offence even more serious and increase the minimum term. These
include:
 a significant degree of planning or premeditation;
 the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of age or disability;
 mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death;
 the abuse of a position of trust;
 the use of duress or threats to enable the offence to take place;
 the fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty; and
 concealing, destroying or dismembering the body.

Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:
 an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill;
 lack of premeditation;
 the offender suffering from a mental disorder or mental disability which lowered his degree of blame;
 the fact that the offender was provoked (for example, by prolonged stress);
 the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence;
 a belief by the offender that the murder was an act of mercy; and
 the age of the offender.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Murder-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf

 

[Joely 123]

I hope Judge Bright includes Boris in his character assessment of the brute tomorrow. We want to see Boris's murder truly recognised for the abhorrence it contains within the " 'in any way' man's mind".
When a person kills your dog you know the true essence of the being. That b - steward pretended to walk on the Heath with Helen, enjoying Boris. He boasted about have HIS number on Boris's yellow collar.
He pretended Boris was a shared responsibility of family whilst Helen truly took care of Jamie and Oliver.
Little boy who lost his life because of 'cleaning up evidence' of a murder committed.
Boris would have wished to go with his darling Mum rather than be in the hands of the perpetrator of her death.

 

[scandinavian girl]

This is a lovely read too from a lady who interviewed her: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/i-thought-john-just-come-12634989

Thank you and you are right it is lovely to read.

 

[Moll]

Jenspired
This always infuriates me - a person who has been able to avoid detection for years is called 'of good character' in court. And this man who planned and executed his crime over a long period is described as 'of impeccable character' by his lawyer.

 

[ColourPurple]

stewart acknowledges that he has burdened both the family of helen bailey and his own family with incalculable loss, a lifetime of misery, sorrow and suffering, and he will have a long time to reflect upon the consequences of those actions. “he is a man of impeccable character, and if the court adopts the starting point of 30 years, the likelihood is that given his state of health, the sentence has an effect of a whole life order in any event.


WTF?

He's just spent six weeks saying he never killed her yet he now acknowledges that he has burdened the families blah blah blah. So he's admitted he did kill Helen after all then???

 

[Alyce]

I have no idea how SRF can acutally spout this kind of stuff - doesn't even use the word murder to describe his client's actions.

As a matter of logic and common sense,there must have been another or indeed mixed motives for Ms Bailey's killing

“He is a man of impeccable character,

 

[Squamous]

stewart acknowledges that he has burdened both the family of helen bailey and his own family with incalculable loss, a lifetime of misery, sorrow and suffering, and he will have a long time to reflect upon the consequences of those actions. “he is a man of impeccable character, and if the court adopts the starting point of 30 years, the likelihood is that given his state of health, the sentence has an effect of a whole life order in any event.


WTF?

He's just spent six weeks saying he never killed her yet he now acknowledges that he has burdened the families blah blah blah. So he's admitted he did kill Helen after all then???

Yes, I think he has. And basically said that he made that whole story up (no ***** Sherlock!) in order to try and get away with it. What a gent!

Has anyone else treated their partner to the 101-call Mr & Mrs style quiz?? Mine could at least remember my eye colour but was rather out on my height!

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes, I think he has. And basically said that he made that whole story up (no ***** Sherlock!) in order to try and get away with it. What a gent!

!

Admitting it now would just make him look even worse and shows that his priority was always himself. He could have admitted it 6 weeks ago and saved Helen's family and friends having to go through the trial. I bet he's gone for the "death of natural causes and then panicked concealment" admission. He really does disgust me

 

[Alyce]

stewart acknowledges that he has burdened both the family of helen bailey and his own family with incalculable loss, a lifetime of misery, sorrow and suffering, and he will have a long time to reflect upon the consequences of those actions. “he is a man of impeccable character, and if the court adopts the starting point of 30 years, the likelihood is that given his state of health, the sentence has an effect of a whole life order in any event.


WTF?

He's just spent six weeks saying he never killed her yet he now acknowledges that he has burdened the families blah blah blah. So he's admitted he did kill Helen after all then???

did we miss the confession bit then ? I havent heard anywhere that IS has taken responsibility for anything

 

[Alyce]

A reminder of aggravating and mitigating factors

Having set the minimum term, the judge will then take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors that may
amend the minimum term either up or down.
The judge may also reduce the minimum term to take account of a guilty plea. The final minimum term will take
into account all the factors of the case and can be of any length.
Aggravating and mitigating factors


Aggravating factors are things that make an offence even more serious and increase the minimum term. These
include:
 a significant degree of planning or premeditation;
 the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of age or disability;
 mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death;
 the abuse of a position of trust;
 the use of duress or threats to enable the offence to take place;
 the fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty; and
 concealing, destroying or dismembering the body.

Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:
 an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill;
 lack of premeditation;
 the offender suffering from a mental disorder or mental disability which lowered his degree of blame;
 the fact that the offender was provoked (for example, by prolonged stress);
 the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence;
 a belief by the offender that the murder was an act of mercy; and
 the age of the offender.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Murder-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf

so he qualifies for 5 out of 7 on the aggravating factors and there are no mitigating factors

I would hope for 30 as a starting point, with extra added for the aggravation

 

[Alyce]

Judge Andrew Bright, who has overseen the six-week trial, made it clear that if Stewart declines to leave his prison cell, he will be sentenced in his absence.


I didn't know he could refuse to go to court ?

Am thinking of the - fairly - recent case of Kayleigh Haywood, where her killer declined to be present in court for many of the days of the trial - but did have to go for sentencing day.

 

[icemaiden65]

It has been said that the lack of caring about animals(or indeed cruel to them) is a red flag.....your fiancé is the opposite of that, he sounds so caring, happy for you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And he likes tea parties if I recall correctly? Fear not Jen, worms like IS are few and far between. Your chap sounds lovely!

 

[Alyce]

Mr Russell Flint said there were two identified aggravating factors in the case – a significant degree of planning or premeditation, and the concealment of Ms Bailey’s body.

Two ?

did he miss the other 3 ?

vulnerable
mental and physical suffering - the drugging
position of trust - as her fiance

 

[mbmc]

stewart acknowledges that he has burdened both the family of helen bailey and his own family with incalculable loss, a lifetime of misery, sorrow and suffering, and he will have a long time to reflect upon the consequences of those actions. “he is a man of impeccable character, and if the court adopts the starting point of 30 years, the likelihood is that given his state of health, the sentence has an effect of a whole life order in any event.


WTF?

He's just spent six weeks saying he never killed her yet he now acknowledges that he has burdened the families blah blah blah. So he's admitted he did kill Helen after all then???

Yes what does this mean? Is he now admitting it all?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk