Sarah Everard v Judith Rhead

[Sirjohnalot]

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

If you look a bit further up in my reply to Darren, I've put a link to the Judge's sentencing remarks where he deals with why he gave a WLT. (whole life term), think it's paragraph 12.

It makes no difference if someone pleads or if found guilty (other than some credit) it certainly would not make a difference between a WLT or not. If the jury find someone guilty, it is only because they are 'sure' of guilty. (We don't use 'beyond reasonable doubt' anymore)

You're spot on in your analysis as to why he was given that sentence, all of those played a part in why he received the sentence that he did. The link above, shows how very intelligent these Judges are, it's a brilliant piece of legal writing. This particular Judge is a Court of Appeal Judge, brought it to deal with this case. He's one of the most senior Judges in the Country, I've been in the Court of Appeal a few times, and these people are on a different level.

 

[Darran]

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

If you look a bit further up in my reply to Darren, I've put a link to the Judge's sentencing remarks where he deals with why he gave a WLT. (whole life term), think it's paragraph 12.

It makes no difference if someone pleads or if found guilty (other than some credit) it certainly would not make a difference between a WLT or not. If the jury find someone guilty, it is only because they are 'sure' of guilty. (We don't use 'beyond reasonable doubt' anymore)

You're spot on in your analysis as to why he was given that sentence, all of those played a part in why he received the sentence that he did. The link above, shows how very intelligent these Judges are, it's a brilliant piece of legal writing. This particular Judge is a Court of Appeal Judge, brought it to deal with this case. He's one of the most senior Judges in the Country, I've been in the Court of Appeal a few times, and these people are on a different level.

Most people would still think that they should both serve a WLT so all this jargon should be thrown out.

 

[JackSomething]

If you look a bit further up in my reply to Darren, I've put a link to the Judge's sentencing remarks where he deals with why he gave a WLT. (whole life term), think it's paragraph 12.

It makes no difference if someone pleads or if found guilty (other than some credit) it certainly would not make a difference between a WLT or not. If the jury find someone guilty, it is only because they are 'sure' of guilty. (We don't use 'beyond reasonable doubt' anymore)

You're spot on in your analysis as to why he was given that sentence, all of those played a part in why he received the sentence that he did. The link above, shows how very intelligent these Judges are, it's a brilliant piece of legal writing. This particular Judge is a Court of Appeal Judge, brought it to deal with this case. He's one of the most senior Judges in the Country, I've been in the Court of Appeal a few times, and these people are on a different level.

Most people would still think that they should both serve a WLT so all this jargon should be thrown out.

Nice work in simplifying the entire legal sector there, speaking on behalf of 'most people', and probably having the same opinion on something as your Liverpool friend for once... :lol:

 

[Darran]

Most people would still think that they should both serve a WLT so all this jargon should be thrown out.

Nice work in simplifying the entire legal sector there, speaking on behalf of 'most people', and probably having the same opinion on something as your Liverpool friend for once... :lol:

Be honest here,three of the most high profile cases over the last twenty years were Ian Huntley,Mick Philpott and Ian Watkins.
Not one of them was given a WLT.
In fact one of them wasn’t even jailed for life.
The laws a f*cking ass and most people would agree.

PS I haven’t got any friends in the Liverpool area.

 

[Sirjohnalot]

' Be honest here,three of the most high profile cases over the last twenty years were Ian Huntley,Mick Philpott and Ian Watkins.
Not one of them was given a WLT.
In fact one of them wasn’t even jailed for life.
The laws a f*cking ass and most people would agree. '

Huntley was given a minimum 40 year sentence which means that he would be 85 before he can even be considered for parole.

Phillpott was not convicted of murder, he was convicted of manslaughter, so he could not get a whole life sentence, he will serve a minimum of 15 years.

Watkins, I think will serve a minimum of 20 years.

Two were convicted of different offences to murder so WLT don't apply and it is likely that Huntley will die in prison, I doubt he will ever be released.

 

[Darran]

' Be honest here,three of the most high profile cases over the last twenty years were Ian Huntley,Mick Philpott and Ian Watkins.
Not one of them was given a WLT.
In fact one of them wasn’t even jailed for life.
The laws a f*cking ass and most people would agree. '

Huntley was given a minimum 40 year sentence which means that he would be 85 before he can even be considered for parole.

Phillpott was not convicted of murder, he was convicted of manslaughter, so he could not get a whole life sentence, he will serve a minimum of 15 years.

Watkins, I think will serve a minimum of 20 years.

Two were convicted of different offences to murder so WLT don't apply and it is likely that Huntley will die in prison, I doubt he will ever be released.

Yes I know and it’s an utter joke.