Sarah Everard v Judith Rhead

[Darran]

This isn’t a debate on what was worse or the the sentencing rules etc but a genuine question for people living in the real world.
One of the most talked about subjects after the Sarah Everard case was the fact that the judge sentenced Wayne Couzens to the rarely used whole of life term but today a judge tells Dale Morgan he can apply for parole after 21.5 years for the horrific murder of his disabled mother Judith Rhead.
I doubt Morgan will be released but that’s not point.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/dale-morgan-judith-rhead-murder-21752623

 

[exiledclaseboy]

What is the point?

 

[Darran]

What is the point?

Why is one told he’s going to serve a whole life term and the other told he can apply for parole after 21.5 years.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

What is the point?

Why is one told he’s going to serve a whole life term and the other told he can apply for parole after 21.5 years.

Because they’re different sentences.

 

[Darran]

Why is one told he’s going to serve a whole life term and the other told he can apply for parole after 21.5 years.

Because they’re different sentences.

Yes I know. But shouldn’t they both be told they’re never coming out?

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Because they’re different sentences.

Yes I know. But shouldn’t they both be told they’re never coming out?

Sirjohn is obviously infinitely better qualified than me on this stuff but there’s a difference between a whole life tariff and a life sentence.

 

[Darran]

Yes I know. But shouldn’t they both be told they’re never coming out?

Sirjohn is obviously infinitely better qualified than me on this stuff but there’s a difference between a whole life tariff and a life sentence.

Yes I know ffs. That’s still not the point though.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Sirjohn is obviously infinitely better qualified than me on this stuff but there’s a difference between a whole life tariff and a life sentence.

Yes I know ffs. That’s still not the point though.

Ok. I’ll leave you to it then.

 

[Darran]

Yes I know ffs. That’s still not the point though.

Ok. I’ll leave you to it then.

Thanks and we don’t see so much of Sirjohn on here because he seems to have his head lodged firmly up Poisonous Perch’s arse.

 

[Sirjohnalot]

Winter is coming, it’s warm and cheaper than a hat

 

[Darran]

Winter is coming, it’s warm and cheaper than a hat

:lol:

 

[Sirjohnalot]

In answer to the point raised, these are the sentencing remarks
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Wayne-Couzens-Sentencing-Remarks-1.pdf

Look at paragraph 16, whole life orders are normally only reserved for certain types of murders, killing of police, multiple killers where there’s a sexual motive, planning etc, abducting and killing a child eg.

I don’t think there’s been a case before this which fell outside these guidelines, the judge said it is reserved for those ‘exceptionally serious offences’ (whilst looking at murders) that nothing less will suffice,

Many cases are given a tariff that parole won’t even be considered after serving a min time, eg 26 years and only if probation are satisfied, there’s no longer a danger. Couzens was deemed so dangerous, he cannot be rehabilitated and will never be released.

I expect an appeal and I expect the sentence will be upheld.

 

[Darran]

In answer to the point raised, these are the sentencing remarks
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Wayne-Couzens-Sentencing-Remarks-1.pdf

Look at paragraph 16, whole life orders are normally only reserved for certain types of murders, killing of police, multiple killers where there’s a sexual motive, planning etc, abducting and killing a child eg.

I don’t think there’s been a case before this which fell outside these guidelines, the judge said it is reserved for those ‘exceptionally serious offences’ (whilst looking at murders) that nothing less will suffice,

Many cases are given a tariff that parole won’t even be considered after serving a min time, eg 26 years and only if probation are satisfied, there’s no longer a danger. Couzens was deemed so dangerous, he cannot be rehabilitated and will never be released.

I expect an appeal and I expect the sentence will be upheld.

Thank you my learned friend but I don’t need to read that.
Do you think Morgan will ever come out? Say for instance in 40 years time after a few parole hearings?
In the real world it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Sirjohnalot]

Oops, already replied to this, disappeared somewhere.

I don't know anything about this other case, so can't really comment. All I can say is that 25 years is a long time. People who get a minimum sentence will have to serve that before they're even considered for parole. I've client who are 10 years plus past their minimum release date. Parole hearings for killers are very lengthy, carefully considered affairs, which includes psychiatrists attending, giving evidence about the person. Person is then questioned at length, his whole prison history, discipline, drugs, drink etc looked at.

When released, they are on life licence, with conditions, they must adhere to, breach of which, means a recall. Any allegation can result in a recall even if unproven

 

[legoman]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I know anything about the Rhead case, but I wonder if the facts in Everard regarding the extent to which Couzens planned his attack, and it had a sexual motive and the hideous way he went about concealing his crime, together with his standing as a serving police officer might have all conspired to class Couzens crime as one in the "very worst" bracket.

sirjohn may have a view on this plus Couzens pleaded guilty, and therefore in the eyes of the law his guilt is not in any doubt. Maybe in Rhead the murderer was tried for his offence having pleaded not guilty and so possibly there is that tiny shred of doubt that he didn't actually do it, and this affects the way sentencing is delivered.

Edit: just re read the extract in Rhead and the murderer did plead guilty so my last point wouldn't apply if that's the case