National News PC Andrew Harper

[Eaststanding]

So the “cop killers must die in prison” and “string em up” are out again.

Like the widow demanding “Harper’s law”.

Our UK law is already set up for whole of life to be decided by the attorney general and within limits. So a terrorist under 21 can’t get it.


So far as I’ve read the youths set out to rob, and completely unforeseen a tow rope to take the quad bike somehow lasso the policeman.

And that is what a jury decided.

So his family, friends and the public should all forget about it now and move on then? You’ve probably never been in their position I would guess.
If you don’t agree with using the appeals process in this case, if you think the jury were correct, if you don‘t think ‘the widow’ should be asking for a change in the law, well that’s your opinion.
But seriously, have a little understanding that there are plenty on here who don’t agree with you, or maybe you do and judging by the tone of your post, you’re on a wind up?

 

[Peterdev]

Personally I hope the appeal of these smirking scumbags is met by a judge sympathetic to the widow of the deceased policeman. That will hopefully mean a substantial increase in their sentences.
hopefully one that will wipe the smiles off their faces, big time

 

[chuckbert]

I wonder how many people on this thread saying “I’ve never met a nice one, they’re scum” can be found on other threads complaining how football fans are mistreated and stigmatised.

Alternate Universe:
Football supporters are absolute scum. I’ve never felt safe when they’re in town. All they do is roam around in drunken gangs, swearing, shouting at people and attacking them. When they move on to their cess pit of a stadium they leave behind broken glasses, bottles and rubbish just expecting others to clean up. My gran is too scared to use the bus on a Saturday afternoon because of them. Sometimes you see the police watching them, but it’s not enough - they should round them up. They know who the ring leaders are, but do they do anything about it? Nope - slap on the wrist, dissallow them from going to their stupid matches and look after their passports for couple of weeks every summer? Hardly a disincentive. Hillsborough? Heysel? Luzhbiki? Hundreds dead because of these murderous fuckers.
I can just hear some frothy snowflakes on here saying “but what about all the scarfy children who love football?”. Get a backbone folks - they are just training the next generation.
The sooner they just ban football and put these twats in prison, the better.

 

[Essexyellows]

I wonder how many people on this thread saying “I’ve never met a nice one, they’re scum” can be found on other threads complaining how football fans are mistreated and stigmatised.

Alternate Universe:
Football supporters are absolute scum. I’ve never felt safe when they’re in town. All they do is roam around in drunken gangs, swearing, shouting at people and attacking them. When they move on to their cess pit of a stadium they leave behind broken glasses, bottles and rubbish just expecting others to clean up. My gran is too scared to use the bus on a Saturday afternoon because of them. Sometimes you see the police watching them, but it’s not enough - they should round them up. They know who the ring leaders are, but do they do anything about it? Nope - slap on the wrist, dissallow them from going to their stupid matches and look after their passports for couple of weeks every summer? Hardly a disincentive. Hillsborough? Heysel? Luzhbiki? Hundreds dead because of these murderous fuckers.
I can just hear some frothy snowflakes on here saying “but what about all the scarfy children who love football?”. Get a backbone folks - they are just training the next generation.
The sooner they just ban football and put these twats in prison, the better.

Mitigation was put in place to iron out the "problems".
Can do the same with travellers.
The ones that behave get an easy ride, the ones that do not get dealt with.
Same as football supporters.

 

[Yellow Hoods]

Personally I hope the appeal of these smirking scumbags is met by a judge sympathetic to the widow of the deceased policeman. That will hopefully mean a substantial increase in their sentences.
hopefully one that will wipe the smiles off their faces, big time

Agree. And in doing that the judge will not be pigeon-holing an entire community, just this particular group of miscreants. Some people on here don't appear to see the difference.

EDIT - Just seen on the news that a sheep farmer from Lincolnshire has been found guilty of contaminating baby food in an attempt to blackmail Tesco. I've been saying for years that sheep farmers from Lincolnshire are potential maniacs and should be locked up. No-one listened then - hopefully they're listening now.

 

[Robie]

Sorry to go back on topic but:

Attorney General has described the sentencing as unduly lenient and referred them to the Court of Appeal.

"

The Attorney General Suella Braverman said PC Harper's killing was a "horrific crime which resulted in the death of a much-respected police officer while he was on-duty, protecting his community".

She said she had referred the sentences after "having personally considered the details of this shocking case".

"Offenders should be punished with the greatest severity for such heinous crimes," she added.

"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-53862037

 

[cassox]

In actual fact the sentence they were given was unusually a high one for manslaughter

 

[ljs]

In actual fact the sentence they were given was unusually a high one for manslaughter

Aren't sentences usually greater than usual when a police officer is the victim?

 

[Robie]

In actual fact the sentence they were given was unusually a high one for manslaughter

Well fortunately the Attorney General is better qualified and positioned than you to decide that.

The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life.

 

[Robie]

Aren't sentences usually greater than usual when a police officer is the victim?

Assault emergency worker came in in 2018 it provides a slightly harsher punishment than battery. ABH, GBH etc all have more punishments.

There has been a slight move away from the mood that police should expect to be assaulted but I don't see many victims in the justice system feeling the punishment fits the crime.

 

[bazzer9461]

In actual fact the sentence they were given was unusually a high one for manslaughter

But it was in the manner it was committed. If one of them punched him and he fell over and banged his head and died then the sentence would have been less. But not in this case.

 

[Scotchegg]

So his family, friends and the public should all forget about it now and move on then? You’ve probably never been in their position I would guess.
If you don’t agree with using the appeals process in this case, if you think the jury were correct, if you don‘t think ‘the widow’ should be asking for a change in the law, well that’s your opinion.
But seriously, have a little understanding that there are plenty on here who don’t agree with you, or maybe you do and judging by the tone of your post, you’re on a wind up?

"You've never been in this position I would guess", and I would hope that no one has.

However, there are victims in every offence directly or indirectly, and there has to be a level of impartiality when convicting and sentencing to allow for justice to be balanced.

In this case, murder was always going to be a very difficult charge to prove. You would need to establish that all three had both knowledge and intent, and the tragic circumstances with PC Harper behind the vehicle would give the possibility of reasonable doubt.

So, a charge of manslaughter is made which removes the need for intent, but shows that their actions were directly responsible for his death. They were found guilty and given sentences longer than most manslaughter convictions.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the three are clearly nasty individuals that offer nothing to society, or that Mrs Harpers life has been ripped apart.

I suspect that the driver may be given a life sentence on appeal, but with a tariff of around 8-10 years which will ensure that he is only released when safe to do so, and the other 2 may have an extra couple of years added, but there will still be many that would rather they spend the rest of their lives inside. But that simply isn't realistic, no matter what our emotions are.

 

[bazzer9461]

"You've never been in this position I would guess", and I would hope that no one has.

However, there are victims in every offence directly or indirectly, and there has to be a level of impartiality when convicting and sentencing to allow for justice to be balanced.

In this case, murder was always going to be a very difficult charge to prove. You would need to establish that all three had both knowledge and intent, and the tragic circumstances with PC Harper behind the vehicle would give the possibility of reasonable doubt.

So, a charge of manslaughter is made which removes the need for intent, but shows that their actions were directly responsible for his death. They were found guilty and given sentences longer than most manslaughter convictions.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the three are clearly nasty individuals that offer nothing to society, or that Mrs Harpers life has been ripped apart.

I suspect that the driver may be given a life sentence on appeal, but with a tariff of around 8-10 years which will ensure that he is only released when safe to do so, and the other 2 may have an extra couple of years added, but there will still be many that would rather they spend the rest of their lives inside. But that simply isn't realistic, no matter what our emotions are.

I do think they’re will see an increase in their sentences and I think the driver will get life but with a minimum of 15 and a minimum of 12 for the passengers. With that I think this would bring and to it all in ragards to the moaning of the leniency of the sentence.

 

[Scotchegg]

I do think they’re will see an increase in their sentences and I think the driver will get life but with a minimum of 15 and a minimum of 12 for the passengers. With that I think this would bring and to it all in ragards to the moaning of the leniency of the sentence.

I can't see a life tariff of 15 years or anywhere near it. Whether it deserves it or not is irrelevant.

 

[bazzer9461]

I can't see a life tariff of 15 years or anywhere near it. Whether it deserves it or not is irrelevant.

Life is usually a minimum of 15 years and if the judge does give him life he hopefully will give a minimum of 15 years, but I’m not sure whether it’s still part of law but guilt by association nowhere they all get the same sentence.

 

[Essexyellows]

Wonder if both appeals will take place at the same time for brevity?

Could be a short day.....

Their appeal..................."Our sentences were wrong" x 2.

The Attorney General Unduly Lenient Appeal & Society as a whole .......... "Yep you are right, have an extra 10 years each."

I doubt it will be that simple but it is good it is being re-examined.

 

[Scotchegg]

Life is usually a minimum of 15 years and if the judge does give him life he hopefully will give a minimum of 15 years, but I’m not sure whether it’s still part of law but guilt by association nowhere they all get the same sentence.

There is no minimum term for a life sentence for manslaughter, and the starting point for murder would be 12 years because of their age.

The offence of joint enterprise for multiple people involved in an offence is difficult and has been misused for a long time. Under these circumstances you would need to prove that all were actively and equally involved in PC Harpers death. There is some evidence that they were encouraging each other, but it would still be a leap to say that the two passengers knowingly and actively contributed as much as the driver.

 

[Eaststanding]

"You've never been in this position I would guess", and I would hope that no one has.

However, there are victims in every offence directly or indirectly, and there has to be a level of impartiality when convicting and sentencing to allow for justice to be balanced.

In this case, murder was always going to be a very difficult charge to prove. You would need to establish that all three had both knowledge and intent, and the tragic circumstances with PC Harper behind the vehicle would give the possibility of reasonable doubt.

So, a charge of manslaughter is made which removes the need for intent, but shows that their actions were directly responsible for his death. They were found guilty and given sentences longer than most manslaughter convictions.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the three are clearly nasty individuals that offer nothing to society, or that Mrs Harpers life has been ripped apart.

I suspect that the driver may be given a life sentence on appeal, but with a tariff of around 8-10 years which will ensure that he is only released when safe to do so, and the other 2 may have an extra couple of years added, but there will still be many that would rather they spend the rest of their lives inside. But that simply isn't realistic, no matter what our emotions are.

Thanks for the legal input, in the politest sense, it wasn’t necessary.
I haven’t followed the case in detail so am not aware, nor do I need to know, at what point in the actions of the offenders were the police saying the intent to kill was formed. That is something that I can’t comment on with confidence so I won’t speculate and I’ll leave it there.
My issue was not with the investigation or the decision of the jury, but with the tone of the post by MarkG that to me, was disrespectful to the family and friends of Andrew Harper and I’d say this whoever the victim was. If I misinterpreted his post and it was simply a pragmatic assessment of the facts then so be it.
That’s how I read it, and that was my reaction, if MarkG wanted to come back to me and discuss it further I would’ve gladly done so.

 

[bazzer9461]

There is no minimum term for a life sentence for manslaughter, and the starting point for murder would be 12 years because of their age.

The offence of joint enterprise for multiple people involved in an offence is difficult and has been misused for a long time. Under these circumstances you would need to prove that all were actively and equally involved in PC Harpers death. There is some evidence that they were encouraging each other, but it would still be a leap to say that the two passengers knowingly and actively contributed as much as the driver.

I was always led To believe life was a minimum 15 years and although the two passengers
Weren’t classed as adults life is still the same sentence as adults.

 

[Scotchegg]

Thanks for the legal input, in the politest sense, it wasn’t necessary.
I haven’t followed the case in detail so am not aware, nor do I need to know, at what point in the actions of the offenders were the police saying the intent to kill was formed. That is something that I can’t comment on with confidence so I won’t speculate and I’ll leave it there.
My issue was not with the investigation or the decision of the jury, but with the tone of the post by MarkG that to me, was disrespectful to the family and friends of Andrew Harper and I’d say this whoever the victim was. If I misinterpreted his post and it was simply a pragmatic assessment of the facts then so be it.
That’s how I read it, and that was my reaction, if MarkG wanted to come back to me and discuss it further I would’ve gladly done so.

Your point was emotional, which is entirely understandable. @MarkG point was to look at the judicial system, which was entirely accurate. I didn't see it as being disrespectful to anyone, but that's often down to the emotions of those involved.

Neither of you are wrong. The justice system must have a heart and reflect the will of the people, but must also be seen to be fair and just. Emotions, whether hateful and vengeful, or compassion and forgiveness (and all inbetween), shouldn't enter into convicting or sentencing or we all lose.

 

[Scotchegg]

I was always led To believe life was a minimum 15 years and although the two passengers
Weren’t classed as adults life is still the same sentence as adults.

Neither are true.

 

[Robie]

Thanks for the legal input, in the politest sense, it wasn’t necessary.
I haven’t followed the case in detail so am not aware, nor do I need to know, at what point in the actions of the offenders were the police saying the intent to kill was formed. That is something that I can’t comment on with confidence so I won’t speculate and I’ll leave it there.
My issue was not with the investigation or the decision of the jury, but with the tone of the post by MarkG that to me, was disrespectful to the family and friends of Andrew Harper and I’d say this whoever the victim was. If I misinterpreted his post and it was simply a pragmatic assessment of the facts then so be it.
That’s how I read it, and that was my reaction, if MarkG wanted to come back to me and discuss it further I would’ve gladly done so.

Murder doesn't require the intent to kill. It requires the intent to cause GBH. A common misconception.

I expect the police and CPS felt the intent was formed at the point at which it became very clear to the offenders that PC Harper was being dragged along and they continued on, told the other to turn the radio up or in fact attempted to swing him from side to side more.

 

[Eaststanding]

Your point was emotional, which is entirely understandable. @MarkG point was to look at the judicial system, which was entirely accurate. I didn't see it as being disrespectful to anyone, but that's often down to the emotions of those involved.

Neither of you are wrong. The justice system must have a heart and reflect the will of the people, but must also be seen to be fair and just. Emotions, whether hateful and vengeful, or compassion and forgiveness (and all inbetween), shouldn't enter into convicting or sentencing or we all lose.

That read like the combination of a presidential campaign speech and a patronising parent mediating between rowing children.
Let’s leave it there.

 

[Eaststanding]

Murder doesn't require the intent to kill. It requires the intent to cause GBH. A common misconception.

I expect the police and CPS felt the intent was formed at the point at which it became very clear to the offenders that PC Harper was being dragged along and they continued on, told the other to turn the radio up or in fact attempted to swing him from side to side more.

Ok, you’ve forced me to also become an internet expert. Here’s the CPS guidance on Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter.
Intent
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

With respect, I don’t want to speculate any further on this case.

 

[bazzer9461]

Neither are true.

Neither are true.

In England and Wales, the average life sentence prisoner serves around 15 to 20 years before being paroled, although those convicted of exceptionally grave crimes remain behind bars for considerably longer; Ian Huntley was given a minimum term of 40 years.

Also from the law books as both Longs accomplices were 18

Schedule 21 sets out the basic starting points.

a) For adults aged 21 years old and over there are 4 starting points:

• a whole life order;
• 30 years;
• 25 years (effective from 2 March 2010); and
• 15 years.

b) For 18 - 20 year olds there are three starting points:

• 30 years;
• 25 years (effective from 2 March 2010); and
• 15 years.

c) For youths there is one 12-year starting point.

These are for life sentences I can’t conclude whether they’re for Murder only ( which I doubt or whether they are for life sentences that are given and as that can be for a variety of offences I suppose if they’re sentences are indeed increased to life then those above would apply.

 

[Scotchegg]

In England and Wales, the average life sentence prisoner serves around 15 to 20 years before being paroled, although those convicted of exceptionally grave crimes remain behind bars for considerably longer; Ian Huntley was given a minimum term of 40 years.

Also from the law books as both Longs accomplices were 18

Schedule 21 sets out the basic starting points.




These are for life sentences I can’t conclude whether they’re for Murder only ( which I doubt or whether they are for life sentences that are given and as that can be for a variety of offences I suppose if they’re sentences are indeed increased to life then those above would apply.

All are for mandatory life sentences for murder. Life sentences can also be given for rape, armed robbery and manslaughter where there are no minimum terms.

 

[Yellow Hoods]

One of those jailed for manslaughter is launching an appeal, as is his right under the law. I doubt he expects much sympathy, but also doubt he cares about that.

 

[Essexyellows]

One of those jailed for manslaughter is launching an appeal, as is his right under the law. I doubt he expects much sympathy, but also doubt he cares about that.

Its fine the lawyers only drained £465k from the public purse first time around defending the indefensible ......

PC Harper widow 'horrified' at killers' reported £465K legal aid costs

Lissie Harper said the amount of public money spent on "defending the indefensible" was unfair.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[MarkG]

Its fine the lawyers only drained £465k from the public purse first time around defending the indefensible ......

PC Harper widow 'horrified' at killers' reported £465K legal aid costs

Lissie Harper said the amount of public money spent on "defending the indefensible" was unfair.

www.bbc.co.uk

They were charged with murder and found not guilty of murder.
So quite clearly it was defensible.
I wouldn't want someone being found guilty of murder just because legal aid wasn't available for them to be defended.

 

[Essexyellows]

They were charged with murder and found not guilty of murder.
So quite clearly it was defensible.
I wouldn't want someone being found guilty of murder just because legal aid wasn't available for them to be defended.

Different jury, different day.

On 20 July, a juror was discharged after a prison officer reported that she had mouthed "bye boys" to the defendants in the courtroom.
So she had not influenced the jury during the trial?

On 24 July, the three defendants were cleared of murder by that very same jury of 11.
Long had pleaded guilty, and Bowers and Cole were found guilty of, manslaughter.

We`ll see what happens with the UDL sentence & Appeals.

Hopefully they will remain in prison for a longer period......... and the public purse will be a lot lighter and several lawyers wealthier.