UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #27

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Parker Knoll said:
Interesting comment from Justice Goose on the guilty verdict in the Elle Edwards murder this afternoon at Liverpool where he asks the prosecution to “make submissions on whether a whole life order is necessary”.
Food for thought.
JMO
Click to expand...
Tbh, I’ve always thought that if LL is found guilty of e.g. two charges, that would be an automatic whole life sentence (i.e. That is the starting point, and the prosecution doesn’t have to make the argument for it to apply. It applies unless the defence can convince the judge not to apply it, which seems like a futile endeavour).

Is it the case that there are certain features of crimes which, if a person is convicted of, results in a default whole life sentence? Or is it a tariff that is always something to play for (as it were) ?
 
Deliberations Predictions

9h 30m - @Tortoise
11h 30m - @Becci
12h 41m - @marynnu
14h 20m - @Becky53
15h 20m - @JosieJo
15h 45m - @katydid23
28h 28m - @DianaWW
31h 30m - @Sweeper2000
35h 25m - @Dotta

Then there are those who can't follow the complex terms and conditions of the competition entry form :p

In the shredder -

Thurs 13th July 2pm to 4pm - @Parker Knoll
Thurs 13th July 2.30pm - @Kemug
Thurs 13th July 3.37pm - @Legal
Fri 14th July 12.45pm - @ColourPurple

Competition closing date Mon 10th July 2023 10.30am
 
GoodDayToYouSir said:
Tbh, I’ve always thought that if LL is found guilty of e.g. two charges, that would be an automatic whole life sentence (i.e. That is the starting point, and the prosecution doesn’t have to make the argument for it to apply. It applies unless the defence can convince the judge not to apply it, which seems like a futile endeavour).

Is it the case that there are certain features of crimes which, if a person is convicted of, results in a default whole life sentence? Or is it a tariff that is always something to play for (as it were) ?
Click to expand...
There is never a default WLO; the sentence for murder is always "life" and the law lays down the statutory criteria for setting the minimum custodial part of the sentence - the tarrif. This is the part you must serve before parole can be applied for. Even if you get parole you're still serving your life sentence just not in prison.

Determining the tarrif depends on setting a starting point based on the nature the murder and adding or subtracting based on any mitigating or aggravating factors. But, even then, I think there is only a certain amount that a starting point can be altered from or something.
 
Tortoise said:
Deliberations Predictions

9h 30m - @Tortoise
11h 30m - @Becci
12h 41m - @marynnu
14h 20m - @Becky53
15h 20m - @JosieJo
15h 45m - @katydid23
28h 28m - @DianaWW
31h 30m - @Sweeper2000
35h 25m - @Dotta

Then there are those who can't follow the complex terms and conditions of the competition entry form :p

In the shredder -

Thurs 13th July 2pm to 4pm - @Parker Knoll
Thurs 13th July 2.30pm - @Kemug
Thurs 13th July 3.37pm - @Legal
Fri 14th July 12.45pm - @ColourPurple

Competition closing date Mon 10th July 2023 10.30am
Click to expand...
I see I'm closing the peloton :D

The last - but hoping not the least?
Hehe
 
Last edited:
Marantz4250b said:
The guidelines, though, are statutory so the judge is quite restricted in how much leeway he has; it wasn't a murder done for gain, for a religious or political motives, didn't involve abduction of a child or any sexual or sadistic motivations. I do get that he was a professional criminal but I don't think that that makes the cut. I reckon his starting point will be 30 years.
Click to expand...

I was reading up on the criteria for Whole Life Terms and found something interesting:

"...the sentence of Wayne Couzens shows us that the courts of England and Wales remain prepared to impose whole life orders in appropriate cases. Furthermore, in sentencing Wayne Couzens,
the court has demonstrated that it is prepared to pass whole life terms in new categories of exceptionally serious cases, not contained in Schedule 21, that plainly call to be treated in this way.

crucible.law

Life Sentences: Whole-life orders

Libby Anderson explains this important area of criminal sentencing
crucible.law crucible.law
Marantz4250b said:
On the issue of the gun; the media are very keen to make out that it was a machine gun (fully automatic) but it likely wasn't. The evidence in the trial was that even if it was then he fired it in semi-automatic mode - there is apparently a video but I haven't seen it. If it had have been capable of full-auto fire I think he'd have used it. In fact, had it been fired fully auto I think there's a decent chance he would have caused less destruction than he actually did as it would have been rather uncontrollable and the majority of shots would have likely gone high.

Anyway, I think I'm drifting a bit OT here.
Click to expand...
It appears to me that Judge Goss might be looking for new criteria for the option to impose Whole Life Terms, in cases such as Wayne Couzens, where gross indiscriminate violence ended in needless death.
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
I was reading up on the criteria for Whole Life Terms and found something interesting:

"...the sentence of Wayne Couzens shows us that the courts of England and Wales remain prepared to impose whole life orders in appropriate cases. Furthermore, in sentencing Wayne Couzens,
the court has demonstrated that it is prepared to pass whole life terms in new categories of exceptionally serious cases, not contained in Schedule 21, that plainly call to be treated in this way.

It appears to me that Judge Goss might be looking for new criteria for the option to impose Whole Life Terms, in cases such as Wayne Couzens, where gross needless violence ended in death.
Click to expand...
I don't think that something like "gross, needless violence" would be within the remit, tbh. I think that that is more an issue for Parliament. The problem, as I see it, is that excessive violence isn't really a "new category" of crime - it happens all the time and, as such, is something which Parliament could have included into consideration for a WLO when the legislation was passed.

Also, the issue of "exceptionally serious" cases is relevant; I think the term refers to cases which are not merely horrific and wholly beyond the realms of decent society but which go further than that. The court in sentencing Couzens made it clear that his crime which, in addition to being absolutely horrific and despicable, was one which struck at the very core of civilised society; one which, if were a regular occurrence, could literally undermine the foundations and functioning of society due to it essentially involving an officer of the state, acting to all intents and purposes with the exceptional power given to him by the state via his police Warrant Card, in order to commit an absolutely horrific crime.

If Couzens had just been a random taxi driver who'd done the same thing then it's clear from the court's reasoning that he would not have been in line for a WLO.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be losing too much sleep if that did get a WLO for shooting up that pub but I don't think it meets the criteria, tbh.
 
My point ( it was late agreed ! ) was that I was surprised that the Judge even mentioned a WLO tbh. For what it’s worth I didn’t expect that even on the table.

I am GUTTED I’m in the shredder bin, if I had known it was getting into competition territory I would have seriously upped my gain here !
Best of three ? ;-)
 
Marantz4250b said:
I don't think that something like "gross, needless violence" would be within the remit, tbh. I think that that is more an issue for Parliament. The problem, as I see it, is that excessive violence isn't really a "new category" of crime - it happens all the time and, as such, is something which Parliament could have included into consideration for a WLO when the legislation was passed.

Also, the issue of "exceptionally serious" cases is relevant; I think the term refers to cases which are not merely horrific and wholly beyond the realms of decent society but which go further than that. The court in sentencing Couzens made it clear that his crime which, in addition to being absolutely horrific and despicable, was one which struck at the very core of civilised society; one which, if were a regular occurrence, could literally undermine the foundations and functioning of society due to it essentially involving an officer of the state, acting to all intents and purposes with the exceptional power given to him by the state via his police Warrant Card, in order to commit an absolutely horrific crime.

If Couzens had just been a random taxi driver who'd done the same thing then it's clear from the court's reasoning that he would not have been in line for a WLO.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be losing too much sleep if that did get a WLO for shooting up that pub but I don't think it meets the criteria, tbh.
Click to expand...
The reason I think it could be in line for a WLO, even though it was just a random guy that shot into the crowd indiscriminately, is it fits this description you gave already:

I think the term refers to cases which are not merely horrific and wholly beyond the realms of decent society but which go further than that. The court in sentencing Couzens made it clear that his crime which, in addition to being absolutely horrific and despicable, was one which struck at the very core of civilised society; one which, if were a regular occurrence, could literally undermine the foundations and functioning of society...


If people dismiss the horrific devastation that comes with people randomly shooting automatic weapons into random crowds, it could get way out of control, much like we see now in our country. JMO
 
katydid23 said:
The reason I think it could be in line for a WLO, even though it was just a random guy that shot into the crowd indiscriminately, is it fits this description you gave already:

I think the term refers to cases which are not merely horrific and wholly beyond the realms of decent society but which go further than that. The court in sentencing Couzens made it clear that his crime which, in addition to being absolutely horrific and despicable, was one which struck at the very core of civilised society; one which, if were a regular occurrence, could literally undermine the foundations and functioning of society...


If people dismiss the horrific devastation that comes with people randomly shooting automatic weapons into random crowds, it could get way out of control, much like we see now in our country. JMO
Click to expand...
I see what you're getting at but I still don't think it qualifies, imo. In Couzens, the court referred to crimes which are an attack on the “the fundamental underpinnings of our democratic way of life”. As horrific as shooting into a crowd is, it is exceedingly rare here and could never approach that level of danger to society.

The police are appointed by the state as part of those "underpinnings" and if they start going rouge and using their police powers to abduct and murder people that poses a significant risk to society at large. Criminals shooting into crows doesn't unless it was happening on a very regular basis, IMO.
 
Dotta said:
But gangland shootings ARE starting to happen on regular basis it seems.
Cashman?
Click to expand...
They are but they don't pose a threat to the "fundamental underpinnings of our democratic way of life". Indeed, they probably never could do as there simply aren't enough firearms, let alone criminals minded to use them in that fashion, to get to that point.

If criminals were regularly shooting at police officers because they were police officers, however, then you may well be able to make that argument and I'd tend to agree with it.
 
Parker Knoll said:
According to last nights local news no shots have been fired on Merseyside for 6 months. I find that hard to believe to be perfectly honest but that was stated.
It has to be a very heavy sentence this afternoon.
Click to expand...
Yep. Thirty year starting point, I think. I've not followed it closely but it seems there are several aggravating factors so an uplift to at least thirty five years or more, I reckon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 125 more.
Total: 2,226 (members: 126, guests: 2,100)

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
2,100
Total visitors
2,226
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,312
Messages
18,106,619
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top