GUILTY UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #26

[bos]

I hope they have translated all the parents have said into Polish so PR hears all this. JMO

Only aspersions on his sense of “manliness” like premature ejaculation, the patheticness of picking on weaker people to control & the consequences for him are likely to have any affect. He is devoid of empathy & the consequences for others will cut no ice with him MOO

 

[tedtink]

"And, there is then perhaps the point of the steps taken to conceal the crimes by the washing of the clothing and laying a false trail.

That part (my bold) intrigues me.

 

[jamjim]

12:34
Defence team says the crimes were not premeditated

Defence barrister Oliver Saxby is now providing mitigation.

He said: “The minimum term of more than 30 years will not be appropriate in my submissions.

“We recognise there are two ways the court could approach the issue. We remind the court that in making findings we have to be sure and of course and it seems likely that the killing occurred after the rape. In that context we submit it has a resonance.

“The significant planning or meditation - the court needs to be careful - there was no doubt he was on the lookout to commit sexual offences, but he was not cruising around to commit rape or a murder.

"There is no evidence he saw Libby Squire prior to parking on Haworth Street.

"What is classified as pre-meditated rape? It is someone going out looking to commit a rape and that isn’t the case here.

"The offender found that evening somebody who he could rape. No question of the degree of planning here, quite the opposite.

“As to the victim’s vulnerability, the Crown rely on that as an aggravating feature but it is in that context the rape was committed and there shouldn’t be double-counting.”

“The concealment: It is an aggravating feature, I can’t and don’t suggest otherwise but there is a live issue whether it was that that killed her. I repeat, it is an aggravating feature.”

Pawel Relowicz sentenced for Libby Squire rape and murder - updates

 

[jamjim]

@sophcorcoran
·
13s

The prosecution and defence have now finished their submissions. Relowicz will be sentenced at 2pm.

 

[Newthoughts]

@Newthoughts
Can you clarify what you are referring to, please?

The summing up for the jury. But we didn't hear all of it and I did appreciate that she said they could infer things. All JMO

I'll be interested in her sentencing speech tho. When she can be freer in her opinions

 

[C.greek]

12:34
Defence team says the crimes were not premeditated

Defence barrister Oliver Saxby is now providing mitigation.

He said: “The minimum term of more than 30 years will not be appropriate in my submissions.

“We recognise there are two ways the court could approach the issue. We remind the court that in making findings we have to be sure and of course and it seems likely that the killing occurred after the rape. In that context we submit it has a resonance.

“The significant planning or meditation - the court needs to be careful - there was no doubt he was on the lookout to commit sexual offences, but he was not cruising around to commit rape or a murder.

"There is no evidence he saw Libby Squire prior to parking on Haworth Street.

"What is classified as pre-meditated rape? It is someone going out looking to commit a rape and that isn’t the case here.

"The offender found that evening somebody who he could rape. No question of the degree of planning here, quite the opposite.

“As to the victim’s vulnerability, the Crown rely on that as an aggravating feature but it is in that context the rape was committed and there shouldn’t be double-counting.”

“The concealment: It is an aggravating feature, I can’t and don’t suggest otherwise but there is a live issue whether it was that that killed her. I repeat, it is an aggravating feature.”

Pawel Relowicz sentenced for Libby Squire rape and murder - updates

Can somebody please explain to me what the defence means that there was no planning? Doesn't it count that he stalked her prior to getting her into his car and his phrase that he was looking for easy sex? Also do they accept now that he murdered her?

 

[jamjim]

Roll on 2pm I say!

 

[Officer Dibble]

Can somebody please explain to me what the defence means that there was no planning? Doesn't it count that he stalked her prior to getting her into his car and his phrase that he was looking for easy sex? Also do they accept now that he murdered her?

I thought we discussed at length how he flew drones over the park a few days before the attack?

 

[Newthoughts]

Can somebody please explain to me what the defence means that there was no planning? Doesn't it count that he stalked her prior to getting her into his car and his phrase that he was looking for easy sex? Also do they accept now that he murdered her?

All a little bit sick I think because he's no longer trying to influence a jury who know less about pre meditation. He's supposed be just addressing the judge who does.

The last judge kicked the mitigation of opportunistic crime straight out.

 

[C.greek]

I thought we discussed at length how he flew drones over the park a few days before the attack?

Yes I meant his defence.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Roll on 2pm I say!

So we now wait until 2pm? Are we free to go until 2pm or will we miss anything in the interim, apart from general posts in here? Edit: I have since read the post now that says return at 2pm.

 

[Cherwell]

The summing up for the jury. But we didn't hear all of it and I did appreciate that she said they could infer things. All JMO
I'll be interested in her sentencing speech tho. When she can be freer in her opinions

Well, that was my point. Judges have to be very careful in summing up that they don't leave the door open for an appeal on the grounds of misdirection or bias. Anyone expecting her to be "brutal" in summing up doesn't understand the implications that would have.

 

[C.greek]

Well, that was my point. Judges have to be very careful in summing up that they don't leave the door open for an appeal on the grounds of misdirection or bias. Anyone expecting her to be "brutal" in summing up doesn't understand the implications that would have.

I said I hope she will be brutal in sentencing him.

 

[Joolz1975]

Can somebody please explain to me what the defence means that there was no planning? Doesn't it count that he stalked her prior to getting her into his car and his phrase that he was looking for easy sex? Also do they accept now that he murdered her?

I doubt they have any choice on whether they accept it really, so the only thing they can do for PR is to try and get him a smaller sentence (I bet secretly they dont care what he gets really).

I think the pre planning probably means that they dont think his intention was to go out and rape and murder Libby that night, to commit a sex offence yes but I think everything that came after they are saying was more opportunistic (IMO) does make me wonder though how far in advance would they deem pre planning? Because once he saw her he certainly formed a plan and carried it out so there was certainly some element of planning.

 

[Jarvis1969]

Lets hope that he gets the sentence that he deserves.

One question, it said the sentence would start today so if they give him for example 30 years, does that mean that he will only really serve 25 as he already has a 5 year sentence left to serve?

 

[NottReds50]

Lets hope that he gets the sentence that he deserves.

One question, it said the sentence would start today so if they give him for example 30 years, does that mean that he will only really serve 25 as he already has a 5 year sentence left to serve?

Nope, new sentence i believe

The court has heard Relowicz’s sentence will start today, however, because he has been a serving prisoner throughout his remand, none of those days will be deducted from the minimum term.

 

[Jarvis1969]

Nope, new sentence i believe

The court has heard Relowicz’s sentence will start today, however, because he has been a serving prisoner throughout his remand, none of those days will be deducted from the minimum term.

Thanks
So does that mean he would, if given 30 years, serve 35?

 

[Joolz1975]

Thanks
So does that mean he would, if given 30 years, serve 35?

No 30 years (and then would have to satisfy parole board he was fit to be released I believe).

 

[Cherwell]

Nope, new sentence i believe

The court has heard Relowicz’s sentence will start today, however, because he has been a serving prisoner throughout his remand, none of those days will be deducted from the minimum term.

Just to clarify the sentence you quoted.

When someone is charged with murder, they are (almost always) remanded in custody, so they are spending the time before the trial in prison. If they are found guilty, the time spent on remand is deducted from the sentence.

In this case, the defendant was technically on remand, but already in prison serving a sentence for another offence. So the time on remand cannot be deducted because it is also time served for a separate sentence.

 

[Alyce]

Thanks
So does that mean he would, if given 30 years, serve 35?

No he will serve the 30, if that is what he is given. The 5 he has left on his other crimes will run concurrently alongside this new sentence ( unfortunately )

Normally, when an accused person has been held on remand and then comes to trial, if he or she is found guilty and given - say - 30 years, the time that they have already spent on remand ( which can be up to a year ) will be deducted from the sentence of 30 years.

In this killer's case, because he is already a convicted criminal and serving an actual sentence in prison, there is no reduction for time on remand.