The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3556304.stm[/URL]
Convicted rapist wins £7 million whilst on day release from his life sentence of...7 years? Doesn't sound much like a life sentence to me, but I'm sketchy on the law of this. Lucky bloke though - 7 year holiday, then gets a massive bundle of cash right near the end!
What are the chances, meh, meeeeeeh!?!
Convicted rapist wins £7 million whilst on day release from his life sentence of...7 years? Doesn't sound much like a life sentence to me, but I'm sketchy on the law of this. Lucky bloke though - 7 year holiday, then gets a massive bundle of cash right near the end!
Page:
Light wrote:
> ~Darling~ wrote:
> They can't refuse to accept that plea just because they don't like
> it.
>
> I don't agree there; if the charge put forward is Murder, and the
> defendant pleads to the lesser charge of Manslaughter, then the
> prosecution and judge have to agree to accept the lesser charge.
>
> I've seen it happen; a defendant pleaded not guilty to a s.18
> assault, but guilty to the lesser s.20. The CPS refused to accept
> that, so it went to trial.
Which is what I said!
> ~Darling~ wrote:
> They can't refuse to accept that plea just because they don't like
> it.
>
> I don't agree there; if the charge put forward is Murder, and the
> defendant pleads to the lesser charge of Manslaughter, then the
> prosecution and judge have to agree to accept the lesser charge.
>
> I've seen it happen; a defendant pleaded not guilty to a s.18
> assault, but guilty to the lesser s.20. The CPS refused to accept
> that, so it went to trial.
Which is what I said!
~Darling~ wrote:
> They can't refuse to accept that plea just because they don't like
> it.
I don't agree there; if the charge put forward is Murder, and the defendant pleads to the lesser charge of Manslaughter, then the prosecution and judge have to agree to accept the lesser charge.
I've seen it happen; a defendant pleaded not guilty to a s.18 assault, but guilty to the lesser s.20. The CPS refused to accept that, so it went to trial.
> They can't refuse to accept that plea just because they don't like
> it.
I don't agree there; if the charge put forward is Murder, and the defendant pleads to the lesser charge of Manslaughter, then the prosecution and judge have to agree to accept the lesser charge.
I've seen it happen; a defendant pleaded not guilty to a s.18 assault, but guilty to the lesser s.20. The CPS refused to accept that, so it went to trial.
This seems to be the thread for multiple postings...whoops!
Light wrote:
> My point is, wouldn't he still have been charged with murder and be
> allowed to plead not guilty to that but guilty to manslaughter on the
> grounds of provocation? In which case, what if the judge or the
> prosecution refuse to accept that plea?
They can't refuse to accept that plea just because they don't like it.
If the judge doesn't agree, then he will say at the end that he finds the defendant guilty of murder.
> My point is, wouldn't he still have been charged with murder and be
> allowed to plead not guilty to that but guilty to manslaughter on the
> grounds of provocation? In which case, what if the judge or the
> prosecution refuse to accept that plea?
They can't refuse to accept that plea just because they don't like it.
If the judge doesn't agree, then he will say at the end that he finds the defendant guilty of murder.
Light wrote:
> Sweet. Thanks for that cos it's not a case I was aware of. Did the
> court set any precedent for what would be considered a reasonable gap
> between the provocation and the murder itself, or was that left to
> presiding judges?
No. It's at the judges discression. If someone rings you up calling you names and such, and you go to their house, and you are still mad then kill him then you can still use provocation even if it took you an hour to get there. However, if your neighbour had been playing loud music and stopped at 10pm, you cannot go round his house and kill him at 11pm since that is a sufficient cooling off period. Bad examples i know but you get the jist.
> Oh, and was it a mitigating factor in the sentencing, or in the
> judges directions to the jury (ie; did he bring it up in his summing
> up for the charge of murder, or was the charge Manslaughter from the
> off?)
I think the judge bought it up in the summing up of the case.
> Sweet. Thanks for that cos it's not a case I was aware of. Did the
> court set any precedent for what would be considered a reasonable gap
> between the provocation and the murder itself, or was that left to
> presiding judges?
No. It's at the judges discression. If someone rings you up calling you names and such, and you go to their house, and you are still mad then kill him then you can still use provocation even if it took you an hour to get there. However, if your neighbour had been playing loud music and stopped at 10pm, you cannot go round his house and kill him at 11pm since that is a sufficient cooling off period. Bad examples i know but you get the jist.
> Oh, and was it a mitigating factor in the sentencing, or in the
> judges directions to the jury (ie; did he bring it up in his summing
> up for the charge of murder, or was the charge Manslaughter from the
> off?)
I think the judge bought it up in the summing up of the case.
~Darling~ wrote:
>
> Well then he won't be able to use the defence. If he had a history of
> violence this would make no difference since the jury will not know
> that. But if the jury found him guilty then obviously the judge will
> see he has a history of violence and will still give him a life
> sentence despite the fact that he has been charged with manslaughter.
Mm, not sure I agree with you there; a jury can be made aware of previous violence if it's considered relevant in exactly the same way that a woman's previous sexual history can be brought up in a rape trial. Pre Trial hearings would sort out whether or not such evidence actually IS brought up I would have thought.
My point is, wouldn't he still have been charged with murder and be allowed to plead not guilty to that but guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation? In which case, what if the judge or the prosecution refuse to accept that plea?
>
> Well then he won't be able to use the defence. If he had a history of
> violence this would make no difference since the jury will not know
> that. But if the jury found him guilty then obviously the judge will
> see he has a history of violence and will still give him a life
> sentence despite the fact that he has been charged with manslaughter.
Mm, not sure I agree with you there; a jury can be made aware of previous violence if it's considered relevant in exactly the same way that a woman's previous sexual history can be brought up in a rape trial. Pre Trial hearings would sort out whether or not such evidence actually IS brought up I would have thought.
My point is, wouldn't he still have been charged with murder and be allowed to plead not guilty to that but guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation? In which case, what if the judge or the prosecution refuse to accept that plea?
SHEEPY wrote:
> That'll never happen though. Prisons will always exist.
Yeah, I know. I just think it's perverse that we as a society tend to spend more time considering how to punish people than we do worrying about how to stop 'em committing the crime in the first place.
> That'll never happen though. Prisons will always exist.
Yeah, I know. I just think it's perverse that we as a society tend to spend more time considering how to punish people than we do worrying about how to stop 'em committing the crime in the first place.
Light wrote:
> The provocation does not have to be severe, just enough to make the
> reasonable man have a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If
> the judge is satisfied that the reasonable man would have also lost
> control at something so minor then the defendant can use the
> defence.
>
>
> He CAN use the defence, yeah. And if it's unsuccessful? Maybe she'd
> cheated before, so what made this time different? Or maybe he has a
> record of violence (say, for example, a couple of assault convictions
> from teenaged years) previously.
Well then he won't be able to use the defence. If he had a history of violence this would make no difference since the jury will not know that. But if the jury found him guilty then obviously the judge will see he has a history of violence and will still give him a life sentence despite the fact that he has been charged with manslaughter.
> The provocation does not have to be severe, just enough to make the
> reasonable man have a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If
> the judge is satisfied that the reasonable man would have also lost
> control at something so minor then the defendant can use the
> defence.
>
>
> He CAN use the defence, yeah. And if it's unsuccessful? Maybe she'd
> cheated before, so what made this time different? Or maybe he has a
> record of violence (say, for example, a couple of assault convictions
> from teenaged years) previously.
Well then he won't be able to use the defence. If he had a history of violence this would make no difference since the jury will not know that. But if the jury found him guilty then obviously the judge will see he has a history of violence and will still give him a life sentence despite the fact that he has been charged with manslaughter.
~Darling~ wrote:
> The case of R v Thornton proved this in 1996. The woman was regulary
> beaten by her husband and one night he came home drunk and thretened
> to beat her up later. He then fell asleep on the sofa and she stabbed
> him. It was held that a final minor incident was sufficient
> provocation where there had been a history of violence.
>
> Normally if there was a gap between the provocation and the incident
> provocation will not lie as a suitable defence since there was a
> 'cooling off' period. But in this case the court held that the fact
> that Mrs Thornton suffered from battered wives syndrome was a
> characteristic to be taken into consideration.
Sweet. Thanks for that cos it's not a case I was aware of. Did the court set any precedent for what would be considered a reasonable gap between the provocation and the murder itself, or was that left to presiding judges?
Oh, and was it a mitigating factor in the sentencing, or in the judges directions to the jury (ie; did he bring it up in his summing up for the charge of murder, or was the charge Manslaughter from the off?)
> The case of R v Thornton proved this in 1996. The woman was regulary
> beaten by her husband and one night he came home drunk and thretened
> to beat her up later. He then fell asleep on the sofa and she stabbed
> him. It was held that a final minor incident was sufficient
> provocation where there had been a history of violence.
>
> Normally if there was a gap between the provocation and the incident
> provocation will not lie as a suitable defence since there was a
> 'cooling off' period. But in this case the court held that the fact
> that Mrs Thornton suffered from battered wives syndrome was a
> characteristic to be taken into consideration.
Sweet. Thanks for that cos it's not a case I was aware of. Did the court set any precedent for what would be considered a reasonable gap between the provocation and the murder itself, or was that left to presiding judges?
Oh, and was it a mitigating factor in the sentencing, or in the judges directions to the jury (ie; did he bring it up in his summing up for the charge of murder, or was the charge Manslaughter from the off?)
Oh Funk!
Page: