GUILTY UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London, Clapham Common area, 3 Mar 2021 *Awaiting Sentencing*, #15

[Angleterre]

<rsbm>

I think we'll need a UK lawyer to weigh in on this, but in the meantime, here's my take on it. I am not a lawyer, and this is strictly my opinion at this point.

IMO, even with a guilty plea, that plea can possibly be changed at certain times within the court process.
A judge may wish to ascertain the circumstances that led to the accused entering such a plea (i.e. was there coercion, is it a false guilty plea, was there a plea agreement that a judge might find unsatisfactory, etc) . A judge may refuse a guilty plea based on legal reasons. I think sub judice will apply right up to the time of the plea being accepted by the court and possibly remain in effect up until the time of conviction or possibly even sentencing.

Subjudice covers up to the point of sentencing ( and in some cases beyond ) as you correctly stipulated Silly Billy. I understand why some posters believed it no longer applied after a plea was given but the law specifically says after sentencing ( there can be issues even after guilty plea that although rare, necessitates it still to go ahead as a jury trial, hence this caselaw as I believe it from my SIO training).

JMO, but no newspapers or MSM seem to be observing sub-judice rules any more. I am pretty sure that they no longer apply as the guilty plea has now been officially accepted by the court. So the thread rules may need to be updated.

Someone asked in the last thread what was thrown out of the window of WC's house when the police arrested him - The Times article says it was a memory card or SIM card. It doesn't say whether or not it was ever recovered.

Unfortunately you are wrong and you don’t just update rules on the WS thread that err on the side of caselaw regarding subjudice.
Subjudice continues beyond the plea to sentencing.

 

[Angleterre]

The judge hasn't refused it though. He's adjourned the case for sentencing. If there was the slightest doubt that this guy was innocent his barrister would have told him to plead not guilty and of they thought he was pleading guilty in error would be duty bound to dismiss themselves from the case.

You cannot insinuate something against someone if they have said it themselves.

I understand your train of thought but WS is a reputable site, and negates rules being broken as best they can. Although he has pled guilty, subjudice rules state that it is to remain subjudice until sentencing is conducted ( and in some rare cases,beyond). We cannot dismiss subjudice rules - it is law .

 

[Angleterre]

CPS Guidance - Mandator Life Sentence In Murder Cases

A few posts back I mentioned a 40 year starting point for the minimum term which must be served before parole can be applied for. That was wrong, the terms are Whole Life, 30 years, 25 years and 15 years.

I think that it's pretty much a certainty that the judge will find that the starting point of 30 years is the correct one. If you look at the part relating to aggravating factors, there are loads which apply to this case as it is and I think that the continuing investigation will turn up, or at least strongly imply, more. I can't see that any of those listed as mitigating factors apply to him. Not even his guilty plea. However in both cases it says that the mitigating and aggravating factors ...may include... the ones listed so the judge can consider anything he thinks reasonable. I'd be amazed if he were given less than 30 years but I think it will be set higher than that with a WLO well within the realms of possibility.

You are correct but in addition the Home Secretary can decide upon what a whole life tarrif is set at. This was seen in the Bulger case R V Thompson and Venables and has to be overturned and also in R V Hasse although that was kept much quieter because of the circumstances.

 

[Gemmie]

I know someone who's son is friends with a firearms cop with a force in a different part of the country. This guy attended a course at the Met a while back and met him. Described him an an "odd-ball". Admittedly, this is all after the fact and it's very easy for someone to say that but, none the less!

Another case and point from a different thread that I'm following here (4 yo Cash Gernon stabbed to death). The guy accused of the crime was thought of as "creepy" (by the teen daughter of the mother who's place it was) when he used to stay at their house for a while. Unsure what he did or said to make her say that he's creepy but there ya are.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I understand your train of thought but WS is a reputable site, and negates rules being broken as best they can. Although he has pled guilty, subjudice rules state that it is to remain subjudice until sentencing is conducted ( and in some rare cases,beyond). We cannot dismiss subjudice rules - it is law .

Is reporting verbatim what was said in court sub-judice though? If so then every news outlet in the country is guilty of it as is every report of every trial ever printed.

 

[Marantz4250b]

You are correct but in addition the Home Secretary can decide upon what a whole life tarrif is set at. This was seen in the Bulger case R V Thompson and Venables and has to be overturned and also in R V Hasse although that was kept much quieter because of the circumstances.

I think you are confused here. A Whole Life Order, is just that, no parole, ever.

The Home Secretary no longer has any sentencing powers (rightly so). I think it was Thomson/Venables which changed that? The only power the Home Sec has now is grating release on compassionate grounds.

 

[Angleterre]

And re: developed vetting etc, it is not always as rigorous as it might seem. I personally know people who have passed it despite having perhaps questionable things in their past . Maybe not things that flag them as killers/sex offenders of course but certainly don’t need to have a clean sheet to pass high level developed vetting .

There are different levels of vetting and security clearance within the Police. For example, for some vetting you have to provide your personal bank statements for a specific time given period and you have to provide the details of extended family members outside of you immediate family and their spouses and children too. It’s a very robust and almost foolproof process ( I say almost because although I have never know one to be fooled at this level, it’s like perfection, you can’t say it will be achieved 100% of the time as tempting fate). You are strictly prohibited from travelling to certain countries and have to obtain permission for travel to others. Another example that is difficult to overcome is when officers transfer from one force to another, often a force that they are arriving in, will take the vetting and security of their previous force to allow the officer to continue their employment and it’s only if the officer offers a change in circumstances or further vetting takes place because a role requires further vetting, or that particular force has a policy to provenance the vetting already been conducted by that previous force, that it will be done again. There have been identified occasions which are very difficult to prove and which don’t breach / breach the European convention on human rights, whereby criminals who make large amounts of money from their chosen criminality, often in the millions and because they have not been arrested ergo a Seizure/Forfeited order under the proceeds of crime granted to seize said cash, that they purport to be a contributing member of society, sending their offspring to Private School and University, who are then made to apply to and often succeed in , securing a place on the Graduated entry Police scheme, because they are educated to a high degree and they are subjected to name changes, so not overtly appearing as a relative to that known criminal, that they succeed in being employed and their sole purpose is to infiltrate the rank and file officer (s), to enable them to infiltrate the intelligence and information systems that are of such value to enable the criminal ( parent ) to continue in their chosen life of criminality and corruption to be embedded . It’s unbelievable the lengths that applicants will go to as offspring of major crime nominals. It’s tough to detect and root out in the larger metropolitan forces moreso due to the staff numbers for example the London Metropolitan force having 38,000 plus police officer staff. Food for thought !

 

[foxed]

Unfortunately you are wrong and you don’t just update rules on the WS thread that err on the side of caselaw regarding subjudice.
Subjudice continues beyond the plea to sentencing.

In that case, how is it that every reputable newspaper in the country is now openly and confidently insinuating his guilt (referring to him as "Sarah Everard Killer" in headlines etc) and inviting anyone who ever met him to say how much of a wrong'un he is, in print?

 

[candlemaker808]

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that subjudice rules technically apply until sentencing (and obviously possibly beyond, depending on reporting restrictions) but are highly unlikely to be enforced following a guilty plea - in large part because a highly experienced judge should in theory not be swayed or influenced by media coverage.

At the same time, WS as a site must set its own rules. This thread has been closed multiple times, and it would be a shame for that to happen again.

 

[Lottiedealite]

I just wanted to say about all the Daily Mail articles. My husband went to the same school as WC and I think most people in the Facebook group have been contacted about WC by tabloids and offered cash for statements. My husband didn't know him as he is a few years older but it makes me wonder how accurate some of the school stories are.

Either way he is an evil man I'm not saying otherwise by the way.

I'm wondering about his route though. Being local I can understand using the A2/M2 as a route for London but to get to Ashford from the A2 is a mission especially with all the roadworks that have been going on the last year. The same to get from Ashford to Tilmanstone is a strange old drive. It's just not a natural route to take and that makes me thing he didn't take her to Ashford the night she disappeared.

Some of the woods they searched in Bettshanger and another wood on the way to Tilmanstone may have been where he stored his own car and maybe where he transferred her but I can't get my head around where and how he got the hire car back and how he got his own car..... I wonder if that's where the wife's involvement was and her arrest at the time was she drove him to pick up/drop off the hire car. Anyway just my musings. I'm pleased to see this thread back open. Between this and Julia James case it's definitley made me scared to walk alone at anytime.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

You know what folks ... if a member's post violates sub judice, it is the member who could be held accountable as being in contempt of court. WS management makes rules and decisions that protect members as well as the site and its owner.

If the media is presenting certain info that violates sub judice, that's a choice they make and a chance they take. While I agree with the member who indicates the chances are slim that the courts would proceed with sub judice violations at this point in time, WS doesn't wish to take that chance and Tricia doesn't have the time, the inclination or the money to become engaged in legal issues.

Please move on from that discussion.

Thank you.

 

[Mrs Marple]

“But Couzens, married to Elena, frequently used prostitutes. And he was branded a drug-taking pervert by an ex-girlfriend who fled from him after he exploded in a rage.

Experts say he has harboured violent sexual fantasies all his life — and could be responsible for further serious offences”

“Professor David Wilson, said: “In my experience of working with violent men, nobody goes from flashing to murder without there being intermediary offences.”

“It would be very unusual for him to have done what he did to Sarah without having done anything else.

Professor Wilson, emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham University, added: “Couzens has had this fantasy of violent sexual behaviour all is life.

“He has carried firearms and worn police uniform in order to be powerful, in control and to be trusted.

“He has cloaked himself in respectability and masked his true sexual deviancy.

“There has to be a possibility that he is responsible for other serious crimes.

It would be negligent if the police do not consider this seriously.”
Sarah's killer used cop uniform to hide 'sexual deviancy', criminologist says

Wilson stating the obvious again

I wish these tv criminologist personalities would stick to adding value rather than regurgitating opinions anyone could reasonably hold.

 

[Mrs Marple]

I haven't heard many school friends coming forward apart from the bully. Nothing on SM articles. Sounds like a loner, fits with what we know about him.

 

[Angleterre]

Oh, for god's sake! If Cressida Dick doesn't resign now, what will it take?

Why should she ?

 

[Angleterre]

Wilson stating the obvious again

I wish these tv criminologist personalities would stick to adding value rather than regurgitating opinions anyone could reasonably hold.

Professor David Wilson is an amazing criminologist and I have met with him and spoken to him and he is the most down to earth man in that field that I have ever come across. He’s not a textbook sit behind a desk person but a get down and dirty and get your hands dirty whilst looking for answers guy. What he doesn’t know, isn’t worth knowing.

 

[Angleterre]

This whole thing is becoming an absolute s*** storm for the Met. If the Met had done their bloody jobs the poor lass would still be alive.

How ? What should they have done that hadn’t already been done? Everyone has secrets and some people have secrets that are difficult to hear and they keep those close to their chest so that people don’t find out . In this country , unless you have proof of any offences or any proof of malfeasance in a public office, you cannot just take action based upon hearsay . His colleagues called him the ‘rapist’ because he was creepy . Do you think that they had evidence of rapes that he had committed and did nothing about them ? In such a hard and mainly bad news job , humour is used to deal with the stress of the role . Part of that is calling colleagues Nick names that are just that - it doesn’t mean if someone is called ‘the Prince of darkness “ that he is evil and commits bad deeds . People are inherently secretive when they have something that they don’t want others to know. Unless Cressida Dicks staff had a crystal ball, other than him being a bit weird , how could they have known? He wasn’t given negative performance reviews based upon his creepy behaviour. It’s slander if you call him these names and if there is no evidence of anything remotely connecting him this evil behaviour, they can’t just sack him . There’s an evidence based process that has to be followed. He is one cop of over 38.000 that she holds vicarious liability for . Yes I’m this case , one is too many but it’s not her fault that this malevolent behaviour wasn’t brought to anyone’s attention. There’s too many people on here who are living in an ideal world. We don’t live in an ideal world and the actions that some are suggesting are preposterous. Do your homework before condemning people who are trying their best ( most of them ) to help make the areas that you live abs work a safer place .
I had colleagues who wore women’s underwear and did so whilst performing auto erotica and died in the process . Nobody in a million years would have known this . It’s absolutely tragic what happened to Sarah but this could have reasonably been a lot of other occupations. There’s only so much that can be accounted for.

 

[Angleterre]

I think you are confused here. A Whole Life Order, is just that, no parole, ever.

The Home Secretary no longer has any sentencing powers (rightly so). I think it was Thomson/Venables which changed that? The only power the Home Sec has now is grating release on compassionate grounds.

I’m not getting confused at all. Whole life orders are not always until they die in prison .

 

[Angleterre]

Is reporting verbatim what was said in court sub-judice though? If so then every news outlet in the country is guilty of it as is every report of every trial ever printed.

It doesn’t matter what you say about every other journalist or newspaper being guilty of it , the fact of the matter under discussion is that the subjudice law is until sentencing. Just because no action has been take n doesn’t mean that WS can ignore the law of subjudice because WS have worked hard to be a reputable site and don’t want to fall foul of the law

 

[Angleterre]

Going back to the whole life sentencing topic. How would it work in terms of sentences for different crimes. Could they be added to each other. Eg 30 years for murder, 10 years for rape, 10 years for kidnap, 5 years for misappropriation of police status etc - to give a total of say 55 years (which most likely would be while life). Could it work like that?

Some of the great train robbers in the 60s got 30 year sentences and that was without murder. Although one man was severely permanently injured.

It depends if a sentence is consecutive or concurrent but generally with a whole life order they will all be encompassed within that sentence

 

[lululolly]

How ? What should they have done that hadn’t already been done? Everyone has secrets and some people have secrets that are difficult to hear and they keep those close to their chest so that people don’t find out . In this country , unless you have proof of any offences or any proof of malfeasance in a public office, you cannot just take action based upon hearsay . His colleagues called him the ‘rapist’ because he was creepy . Do you think that they had evidence of rapes that he had committed and did nothing about them ? In such a hard and mainly bad news job , humour is used to deal with the stress of the role . Part of that is calling colleagues Nick names that are just that - it doesn’t mean if someone is called ‘the Prince of darkness “ that he is evil and commits bad deeds . People are inherently secretive when they have something that they don’t want others to know. Unless Cressida Dicks staff had a crystal ball, other than him being a bit weird , how could they have known? He wasn’t given negative performance reviews based upon his creepy behaviour. It’s slander if you call him these names and if there is no evidence of anything remotely connecting him this evil behaviour, they can’t just sack him . There’s an evidence based process that has to be followed. He is one cop of over 38.000 that she holds vicarious liability for . Yes I’m this case , one is too many but it’s not her fault that this malevolent behaviour wasn’t brought to anyone’s attention. There’s too many people on here who are living in an ideal world. We don’t live in an ideal world and the actions that some are suggesting are preposterous. Do your homework before condemning people who are trying their best ( most of them ) to help make the areas that you live abs work a safer place .
I had colleagues who wore women’s underwear and did so whilst performing auto erotica and died in the process . Nobody in a million years would have known this . It’s absolutely tragic what happened to Sarah but this could have reasonably been a lot of other occupations. There’s only so much that can be accounted for.