It's okay, I've seen @ColourPurple 's post above, which also explains what I was saying.
In reality, the aggregate between a life sentence and a whole life order is not black and white, and therefore the judge must use their discretion in determining whether or not the convicted person meets that threshold.
Also am I right from memory that a person in a cat a prison (High security) needs to move up a cat first? This in itself isn't easy from A cat to B (which is still high)
I am not sure there exists any set point that a person convicted of murder would be eligible to apply to move to open prison. I could be wrong, and it may depend on their unique circumstances, however I was under the impression they might not be entitled to apply for release from a Cat B prison, let alone a Cat A.
I, and many others here, disagree with your assessment of this. Indeed, this has been mentioned as a strong possibility right from the time she was finally arrested in 2020. It seems to be generally accepted that a WLO is highly likely if she is convicted of multiple murders. At the very least it's very likely to be a starting point of a WLO which may get reduced down to, say, 40 years.
A whole life order is possible. A life sentence is far more likely. IMOI, and many others here, disagree with your assessment of this. Indeed, this has been mentioned as a strong possibility right from the time she was finally arrested in 2020. It seems to be generally accepted that a WLO is highly likely if she is convicted of multiple murders. At the very least it's very likely to be a starting point of a WLO which may get reduced down to, say, 40 years.
Of the few WLO's which have been passed I'm not aware of any judge taking into account the age of the defendant, although I admittedly haven't read up on them all. Joanne Dennehy was only in her late 20's (maybe just 30) when she was sentenced to a WLO for her murderous rampage. I don't think it was mentioned by the judge that her age was ever taken into consideration. JD even entered a guilty please from the outset so that didn't even get her any credit!
Although the statutory guidelines do make mention of the age of the offender being a consideration in setting the tariff - they are almost all about things directly relating to the crime such as planning, premeditation and motivation along with the actual crime itself and the suffering caused. Also things like the extent the perpetrator went to cover things up and get away with it. It's about punishing the crime, not taking account of the harm to the perpetrator going forward (I hate that phrase, btw)!
If she is indeed found guilty then I'm really struggling to see where any possible mitigation might come from; she hasn't entered an early guilty plea; she denied literally everything and went through thirty police interviews maintaining her innocence, etc. There possibly possibly might be weight given to the fact that they might buy that she intended to cause GBH and not kill - especially if she's acquitted of the attempted murder charges and possibly something might be made of her claiming that she was acting out of mercy for some bizarre reason but if she's convicted of ten murders of helpless newborns then those mitigations are pretty thin ones, let's be honest here.
Even having said the above, the aggravating factors seem to entirely outweigh any mitigating ones; pre-planning, undoubtedly causing suffering, maintaining innocence, gross abuse of a position of absolute trust, manipulating others in order to allay suspicion (abuse of a position of trust again), the list is almost endless. Murdering ten babies, attempting to commit a dozen or so other murders is as serious as it gets and the age of someone convicted of that is going to be immaterial, IMO.
The statutory guidelines start:
Starting points
2(1)If—
(a)the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) is exceptionally high, and
(b)the offender was aged 21 or over when the offence was committed,
the appropriate starting point is a whole life order.
(2)Cases that would normally fall within sub-paragraph (1)(a) include—
(a)the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following—
(i)a substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
(ii)the abduction of the victim, or
(iii)sexual or sadistic conduct,
(b)the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation,
(c)the murder of a police officer or prison officer in the course of his or her duty, where the offence was committed on or after 13 April 2015,
(d)a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause, or
(e)a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.
I cannot see how, if she's convicted of everything, or even only a few of the murder charges, that any court (or anyone else, for that matter) would consider that the seriousness of such acts could be anything other than "Exceptionally High". To consider it to be anything less is bonkers, quite frankly. As quoted above, the starting point for a tariff for that is a Whole Life Order.
So, a WLO is far from unlikely if she's convicted - indeed, it is by any dispassionate application of all the factors, the most likely outcome or if being very generous the starting point from which a reduction may be made.
Sentencing Act 2020
www.legislation.gov.uk
Al enitirely MOO and not to be taken as me giving an opinion on guilt/innocence, obvs.
I don’t think judges were able to give whole life sentences at the time Allit was sentenced though. They could only be issued by the Home Secretary up until 2003, which may have played a part there.
vardags.com
??? Murder always results in a life sentence!
Yes, the Home Secretary used to set all minimum terms, I think. It was a ridiculous situation which was obviously going to be challenged as a politician is never independent.I don’t think judges were able to give whole life sentences at the time Allit was sentenced though. They could only be issued by the Home Secretary up until 2003, which may have played a part there.
I’d be very surprised if she didn’t get a WLO if she’s found guilty of all charges. We’re talking about murdering, and attempting to murder babies. I think there would be outrage.
Criminal Law Guide | Whole Life Orders
The Whole Life Order (WLO) is the single most severe punishment in English criminal law. A WLO means that the offender will spend the rest of their life in prison, with no minimum term and no chance of early release. Where a mandatory life sentence has been imposed, the courts are usually...
That's a very good point regards the whole life terms being brought in - which as you rightly point out, wouldn't have been an option when Allit was sentenced.I don’t think judges were able to give whole life sentences at the time Allit was sentenced though. They could only be issued by the Home Secretary up until 2003, which may have played a part there.
I’d be very surprised if she didn’t get a WLO if she’s found guilty of all charges. We’re talking about murdering, and attempting to murder babies. I think there would be outrage.
Criminal Law Guide | Whole Life Orders
The Whole Life Order (WLO) is the single most severe punishment in English criminal law. A WLO means that the offender will spend the rest of their life in prison, with no minimum term and no chance of early release. Where a mandatory life sentence has been imposed, the courts are usually...
What are these "...many instances..."? I can't think of any, quite honestly. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "are instead given life sentences, with a minimum period of life imprisonment.". That doesn't seem to make much sense, sorry.
Another nurse?
Another nurse?
Geez, it is terrifying how many weird people are attracted to medical professions
JMO
I've thought that before but I'm not so sure it's the case that it attracts more weirdos than other professions, to be honest. When you think about it, even just in the UK there will be hundreds of thousands or even a million or more people in front line medical roles. The number of murdery doctors and nurses is tiny in reality. You also have to consider that even if there are no greater percentage of potentially murdery people in those sectors than in others, they are in a fairly unique position in having access to really dangerous drugs and equipment along with incapacitated and vulnerable people. A weirdo in those circumstances will have a greater opportunity to do harm, and to do it unnoticed for longer, than in most other professions.Another nurse?
Geez, it is terrifying how many weird people are attracted to medical professions
JMO
Yes, sorry was typing in a rush - I meant, I believe they need to move up the cats (prior to any type of release, period - even temp release isn't an option in cat a/b) it is indeed a complicated process.
There might be a grain of truth there!
Her replies to these questions are so contradictory. Huge slip up here imo.One of the early police interviews -
Letby is asked if she had taken any paperwork home in relation to the babies, Letby denies she has taken papers home, then adds: "I don't know - I might have taken some handover sheets accidentally. Not medical notes.
"They [the handover sheets] might have been taken [home] in my pocket."
Her final police interview on 3rd arrest -
In a third overarching interview, Letby is asked about the handover sheets.
She said, 'ideally', the handover sheets should be put in the confidential waste bin at the end of her shifts.
She said that at times, they would come home with her.
She is asked about 'a large quantity of handover sheets' at Letby's home address. She replies there was "no specific reason" why she had taken them home.
She said she would have been aware she still had the handover sheets when she got home, and put them in a folder in the spare room.
She said she "didn't know how to dispose of them" and no-one else had seen them.
She said she would have seen those handover sheets at home "hardly ever".
She said she did not have a shredder and those sheets were at home 'inadvertently'.
Other paperwork at home would have been policy sheets from different hospitals, in relation on how to care when a patient presents with various symptoms.
Letby said she 'had just not done anything' about the handover sheets when she got home.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…www.chesterstandard.co.uk
"She said she would have seen those handover sheets at home "hardly ever"."
It sounds like a lie to me.
Putting sheets in a folder is organised and purposeful.
JMO
