National News PC Andrew Harper

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

Should we have sharia law or a kangaroo court like Greece and that Man United player ? Would save “the taxpayer” a lot of money.... because that’s what’s important?
 
Should we have sharia law or a kangaroo court like Greece and that Man United player ? Would save “the taxpayer” a lot of money.... because that’s what’s important?

Sharia law isn`t that bad if you look into it, it is adaptable, moves with the times and has a higher standard of proof than most Western law but fewer "downgrades" like from murder to manslaughter. They tend to go for the right charge from the start.
Muhammad even said "Ward off the hudud from the Muslims as much as you all can, and if you find a way out for the person, then let them go. For it is better for the authority to err in mercy than to err in punishment.” However if you do break the hudud then it gets brutal, them`s the rules.

Greece is in the EU so its all done properly, Harry was just a drunk, rich Brit on holiday. ;)

No issue with taxpayers supporting those who need legal advice...... if they are taxpaying contributors to society too. :)
 
It's been heartening to see some people on here try to avoid racism. Criticising these 3, or the residents of redbridge hollow, doesn't need to be reduced to "well that's just travellers then isn't it". It's a bit like judging Oxfordshire by the worst part of Blackbird Leys.

It's a tragic and deeply unfortunate incident that's led to this and my heart goes out to the family of Andrew Harper. I don't know, however, that we ought to have laws that enshrine policemen as having lives more important than others.
 
I fundamentally disagree that a law should position the life of policemen as more important than that of civilians. Feels really horrendous, to be honest and i can't believe a government is giving it the time of day
 
  • React
Reactions: m
I fundamentally disagree that a law should position the life of policemen as more important than that of civilians. Feels really horrendous, to be honest and i can't believe a government is giving it the time of day

Emergency service workers - those folk who go towards danger while the rest of us are, generally, going the other way.
 
Emergency service workers - those folk who go towards danger while the rest of us are, generally, going the other way.

This should be reflected in pay and rewards.

I resent the implication that their lives are intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's.
 
Back
Top Bottom