Pc harper

[transam]

So 1 got 16 years
And the other 2 got 13 years

For the Manslaughter of PC Harper

All. Had previous criminal convictions

The driver had previously threatened to ram a police car off the road the prosecution was not allowed to bring this to the jury's attention

 

[Doug99]

RIP

 

[Stivino]

They should string the lot of them up by the nuts.

 

[Munroast]

16 years for manslaughter, what early release is possible on that ? could he be out in as little as 5year 4month (less the year already served) or could he have to serve 8 years?

 

[charliegolf]

Murder attracts a sentence in the order of 15 years. There were no flies on the judge in this case in my view.

 

[crystal ball]

https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resour...hter-how-many-years-could-you-face-in-prison/

 

[Munroast]

Murder attracts a sentence in the order of 15 years. There were no flies on the judge in this case in my view.

yes but - 15 years life means 15 years behind bars (?) 16 years manslaughter and you will likely be out in 8 or just over 5 (?)

 

[crystal ball]

is it that simple?

https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-serve-prison/

 

[Mottie]

In my opinion, this wasn’t manslaughter and they should have all been tried for murder.

 

[Brigadier]

It is not so much the "headline" time behind bars, but the "life" part that is important imho.

IIRC, "life" means the miscreant is always on a very short leash, and can be recalled to prison at any time in the future, should the justice system require it.

 

[Burnerman]

More candidates for the attention of Mr. Albert Pierrepoint.
John

 

[crystal ball]

In my opinion, this wasn’t manslaughter and they should have all been tried for murder.

Sometimes the CPS have to go for a lesser crime to get a conviction, looks like the sentence is the higher end for manslaughter

 

[Mottie]

Sometimes the CPS have to go for a lesser crime to get a conviction, looks like the sentence is the higher end for manslaughter

Yeah, I understand that but to see them smiling and laughing about it in court is just so remorseless and disrespectful to his family, it just sickens me. How anyone can accept that they didn’t look out of the rear window of a car when escaping and know full well what was happening behind them just fills me with disbelief.

 

[Munroast]

is any one happy that they will most likely be out free s a bird in 7 years time? (may be even out in little more than 4 years)

 

[ellal]

Yeah, I understand that but to see them smiling and laughing about it in court is just so remorseless and disrespectful to his family, it just sickens me. How anyone can accept that they didn’t look out of the rear window of a car when escaping and know full well what was happening behind them just fills me with disbelief.

I said this before...

That's the puzzling bit...

Intention to kill is murder.

Killing not by intention is manslaughter.

But at some point they surely must have been aware, and the latter should have become the former?

"The judge told the court: "Sometimes death may be caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes it is very close to a case of murder in its seriousness. That is so, here."
He said the defendants' denials they did not know they were dragging anything behind the car were "clearly false" and he rejected the idea they had shown remorse."

So is it that the judge believed they knew they were dragging 'something', but seems to have come to the conclusion they didn't know what?