Proving which is which is of course the problem as in this case.
Pc harper
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
Again a tricky one.
How do you prove they knew (or not), and if they knew did they/did they not warn the driver?
I guess it depends on whether you believe 'guilt by association'/'joint enterprise'/'common purpose' is a just law or not.
Lots of cases under review at the moment.
do you mean the baws
Aye, the R.S.McCalls.do you mean the baws
Sponsored Links
Afaik the prosecution said that pc harper who was 6 foot and 14 stone
The defendants knew he was being dragged down the road and they weaved the car from one side of the road to the other in an attempt to. DisLodge him
??
The defendants knew he was being dragged down the road and they weaved the car from one side of the road to the other in an attempt to. DisLodge him
??
I agree that the defendants knew exactly what they were doing. However, convincing a jury of that beyond all reasonable doubt is not that easy, hence the jury found them not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. It would be impossible for the jury to find them not guilty of manslaughter as there is no doubt they caused the death of PC Harper whilst committing a crime.
The judge's view was obvious in his summing up. He's known to be quite a strict judge, so i would imagine the sentences are at the stiffer end of the penalty spectrum available to him. They have to serve at least 2/3rds of the sentences in jail and i suspect that they won't behave well in jail. Unfortunately, i would imagine the judge didn't go any further on the sentence for risk of it being challenged and them ending up with an overall more lenient sentence.
Generally, our legal system works relatively well. Its just a shame in this case that the judge wasn't able to give them full life terms.
How do you reconcile those two statements?
Are you saying that you can make a judgement without hearing the facts, and merely base your 'decision' on media reporting?
Because it on the whole tries to ignore the above!
I can reconcile those two statements quite easily. I am not on the jury and therefore i am not responsible for someone going to jail for a long time. If i was, and had had to listen to a clever defence barrister doing everything they could to persuade me that there was reasonable doubt, i might come to the decision that there was reasonable doubt and therefore not find them guilty of murder.
Plus, the jury did not, as i do, have the benefit of knowing about the defendant's criminal history or the benefit of reading the judge's sentencing summation. He makes it very clear that he believes that driver and passengers in the car were totally aware they were dragging a policeman behind them.
Nor did they have the benefit of a recent evening's discussion with a county court judge and his defence barrister wife and hearing their professional views from both sides of the bar on this specific case and the difficulties of juries.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,465
- Reaction score
- 683
- Country
D
durhamplumber
Probably will not accept people who talk of thenselves in the third person.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Juries don't get to decide what the charge is.
they get to decide if there verdict is. Murder as per the prosecution evidence
Or Manslaughter as per the defences evidence
Stop. Talking nonsense himmagin
They were charged with murder
HAVE
- Status
Sponsored Links
