• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

National News PC Andrew Harper

Scotchegg said:
We will have to wait to see the exact wording on the statute book. However, it seems that manslaughter of an emergency worker will now carry a mandatory life sentence as opposed to a determinate sentence. This means that someone does not have a conditional release date but will serve a minimum tariff before being considered for release.

I can't see a way in which this would apply to a "standard" road traffic accident where the speed limit was broken in the example given. However, if (as has happened) a police officer deploying a stinger to stop a fleeing vehicle is deliberately struck by that vehicle and killed, then we would see manslaughter charges (and life sentence) rather than death by dangerous/reckless driving.
Click to expand...
don't have to wait, it was part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (section 3 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/section/3/enacted).

it has regularly been referred to as poor law created in haste as a knee-jerk reaction to an event.
 
I'm all in favour of "f**k around, find out". If you are at the upper end of the criminal spectrum then you know exactly what it entails and what the outcome will be. Whether the forces that be, whether legal or not, dish out the required punishment is another thing.
 
Jimmy P said:
killing anyone is reprehensible but to ensure those carrying out the most dangerous of jobs you have to ensure they are protected - this ensures they know they have full weight of law behind them
Click to expand...
Should a service worker be entitled to greater protection than a young child, or perhaps an innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
 
Jimmy P said:
I absolutely agree with the sentiment, and anyone who intentionally kills a service worker should be treated differently, however of the 3 convicted only 1 was convicted of murder and will not eligible for early release

The two passengers who were convicted of manslaughter will be as they did not kill PC Harper (or did not knowingly do so)

Even if we changed the law to anyone that intentionally kills a service worker they would still be eligible - in this instance i do think it will and should be parole that make the decision and hopefully that wont grant early release
Click to expand...
All three were cleared of murder, but convicted of manslaughter. Long, the driver admitted manslaughter and was sentenced to 16 years, the other 2 were passengers and minors at the time of the crime, and sentenced to 13 years.

Any changes in law that have been made since can't be applied retrospectively.
 
m said:
I've never understood why killing someone in service is worse than killing someone who isn't.

Not that I've any sympathy for these scumbags, that couldn't be further from my point.
Click to expand...

Think it was covered earlier in this thread............. those who go towards danger when the rest of us are going the other way should have a higher level of legal protection if they are killed/injured in the line of duty and the person causing their death/injury should suffer a more stringent penalty.

Sentenced to 13 years and here we are 6 years later discussing their release............and in 2 years it`ll be the driver.
 
Essexyellows said:
Think it was covered earlier in this thread............. those who go towards danger when the rest of us are going the other way should have a higher level of legal protection if they are killed/injured in the line of duty and the person causing their death/injury should suffer a more stringent penalty.

Sentenced to 13 years and here we are 6 years later discussing their release............and in 2 years it`ll be the driver.
Click to expand...
If a greater level of protection is possible, why can't we all have that same level of protection?

Obviously I do not wish to see Andrew Harper's killers released.
 
m said:
I've never understood why killing someone in service is worse than killing someone who isn't.

Not that I've any sympathy for these scumbags, that couldn't be further from my point.
Click to expand...
It isn't, the entire sentiment behind the law is disgusting.

But anyway, the focus on this case is foolish because the story isn't about this, is about the neglect of prisons and the justice system to the point where we get here.
 
SteMerritt said:
Have they been confirmed as being released? Being considered? If they are 'considered', what are the chances of them coming out early?

Surely there must be an element of prisoners cases being looked at on a case-by-case basis, not simply everyone elegible is going to be released?
Click to expand...
It didn't sound like that on the radio yesterday. It sounds like if you've served your time without incident, are halfway through your sentence and are not one of the very few (somewhat arbitrary) exclusions then you're out.
 
smiler106 said:
If a greater level of protection is possible, why can't we all have that same level of protection?

Obviously I do not wish to see Andrew Harper's killers released.
Click to expand...

Protection was probably the wrong word, it should be a highly aggravating factor in sentencing leading to the strongest penalty which is life for manslaughter.
 
SteMerritt said:
Have they been confirmed as being released? Being considered? If they are 'considered', what are the chances of them coming out early?

Surely there must be an element of prisoners cases being looked at on a case-by-case basis, not simply everyone elegible is going to be released?
Click to expand...

The sentencing act means that as of 1st October 2026 (unless it changes again) all eligible prisoners will be released after serving 33% of their sentence in custody (previously 40%) or 50% for those convicted of more serious offences (previously 67%). But releases are being staggered depending on the length of sentence, so many will serve more than the minimum period with many not being released ahead of their existing release date.

I don't know the explicit details, but my very simple estimates are that the two individuals would have been expected to have been released around the autumn of 2027. As it stands they could now be released around June 2027, with tagging and additional supervision than they may have originally had.

This doesn't make it right by any means, but the difference in these cases is fairly marginal.

I do however think that this could have all been avoided if the eligibility excluded sex offenders, serious violence and those of high media interest.
 
Scotchegg said:
The sentencing act means that as of 1st October 2026 (unless it changes again) all eligible prisoners will be released after serving 33% of their sentence in custody (previously 40%) or 50% for those convicted of more serious offences (previously 67%). But releases are being staggered depending on the length of sentence, so many will serve more than the minimum period with many not being released ahead of their existing release date.

I don't know the explicit details, but my very simple estimates are that the two individuals would have been expected to have been released around the autumn of 2027. As it stands they could now be released around June 2027, with tagging and additional supervision than they may have originally had.

This doesn't make it right by any means, but the difference in these cases is fairly marginal.

I do however think that this could have all been avoided if the eligibility excluded sex offenders, serious violence and those of high media interest.
Click to expand...
Is ‘high media interest’ a viable argument? It’s also a very subjective term.
 
Wallop said:
Is ‘high media interest’ a viable argument? It’s also a very subjective term.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it gives you the opportunity to then manage those case which do present interest (rightly or wrongly). This may not prevent someone being released but may ensure that additional victim work to support those who may be affected by this. Something similar is already in place for high profile releases under existing sentencing regulations so this would only reinforce what already exists.
 
Scotchegg said:
I agree, but it gives you the opportunity to then manage those case which do present interest (rightly or wrongly). This may not prevent someone being released but may ensure that additional victim work to support those who may be affected by this. Something similar is already in place for high profile releases under existing sentencing regulations so this would only reinforce what already exists.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I suppose my initial reaction was based on not wanting prisoners to be unfairly retained due to Daily Mail and Express readers outrage.
 
Essexyellows said:
Premeditated.
Zero doubt of guilt (caught at the scene etc).
Heinous.

3 checks to give the judge the option to put on the black cap.

Not for "all murders" just those that go beyond ......
Click to expand...
The only issue is if a terrorist having killed and is facing capital punishment will shoot his way out of trouble causing mayhem.
That said I’m sure it’d provide an effective deterrent to anyone contemplating murder.
 
Peterdev said:
The only issue is if a terrorist having killed and is facing capital punishment will shoot his way out of trouble causing mayhem.
That said I’m sure it’d provide an effective deterrent to anyone contemplating murder.
Click to expand...

A death penalty isn't an effective deterrent.
 
Whingit said:
Anyone thinking it's a deterrent needs to look at America because murder rates are much higher there. The state murdering people makes them just as bad as the murderers in the first place imo.
Click to expand...

America where pretty much everyone owns a gun or three? 74% of murders are with a firearm over there. They have a gun problem not a death penalty problem.

For comparison 46% of murders in England are committed with a knife, generally out of the kitchen drawer.
 
Essexyellows said:
America where pretty much everyone owns a gun or three? 74% of murders are with a firearm over there. They have a gun problem not a death penalty problem.

For comparison 46% of murders in England are committed with a knife, generally out of the kitchen drawer.
Click to expand...
I don't think the method of murder was really what the point was.
 
SteMerritt said:
I don't think the method of murder was really what the point was.
Click to expand...

Yes, but everyone who opposes the DP says "look at America the DP doesn`t work"....................

Conveniently forgetting that America has First, Second and Third degree murder and a complex Federal/State legal system.
As per my "Tick 3 boxes" the USA actually uses a similar flow chart.
  1. The strength and sufficiency of the admissible evidence.
  2. The severity, circumstances, and nature of the alleged offence.
  3. The background and criminal record of the accused.
And then they, amazingly, give the legal process the choice to apply the DP or not.
The jury is specially selected and jurors can be rejected for having Pro or Anti DP views.

"To impose a sentence of death under federal and guided-discretion state statutes, the jury must find that the proven statutory aggravating factors sufficiently outweigh all mitigating factors present in the case"

Even then, proportionate to the amount of murders, it is rarely carried out with appeals etc.

47 people were executed in 2025
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Marked Ox
National News Andrew Windsor
4 5 6
Replies
160
Views
10K
HayfieldYellow
HayfieldYellow
Big Ronaldo
National News Prince Andrew - Yeah right...!
3 4 5
Replies
137
Views
28K
Essexyellows
Essexyellows
Back
Top Bottom