Lawrence two guilty
Discussion
Laurel Green said:
Met Commissioner on local news saying the other three should not rest easily in their beds - the case is still ongoing.
Since the verdicts new evidence has come to light apparently. This could be one reason for the "relatively" light sentences? Have they grassed up the others?Janluke said:
Let me say from the outset that I think they were as guilty as hell and should have been in prison years ago BUT from the reporting of the evidence given in the trial I am not at all convinced that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
I entirely agree. What's worse, is that I totally fail to see, how, the defendants could face a fair trial in any form or manner, considering how much of this has been in the public domain for God knows how many years. On top of that , from what I have read , it seems that the law of double jeopardy was struck out, because of this case. Double jeopardy existed to stop the state hounding somebody untill they got the result they wanted.
Perhaps this case proves the case for the reinstatement of double jeopardy. Problem is, the entire circus stinlks of political intent as against justice.
We shall see. I think they will walk on appeal anyhow. Noises from the Police etc about pressing those convicted to grass on the others could imply they think the same and need a confession by implication, or however they term it.
We shall see.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Janluke said:
Let me say from the outset that I think they were as guilty as hell and should have been in prison years ago BUT from the reporting of the evidence given in the trial I am not at all convinced that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
I entirely agree. What's worse, is that I totally fail to see, how, the defendants could face a fair trial in any form or manner, considering how much of this has been in the public domain for God knows how many years. On top of that , from what I have read , it seems that the law of double jeopardy was struck out, because of this case. Double jeopardy existed to stop the state hounding somebody untill they got the result they wanted.
Perhaps this case proves the case for the reinstatement of double jeopardy. Problem is, the entire circus stinlks of political intent as against justice.
We shall see. I think they will walk on appeal anyhow. Noises from the Police etc about pressing those convicted to grass on the others could imply they think the same and need a confession by implication, or however they term it.
We shall see.
OdramaSwimLaden said:
Since the verdicts new evidence has come to light apparently. This could be one reason for the "relatively" light sentences? Have they grassed up the others?
I'd like to think that the two had been put into a cell with some big 'brothers' and that they were then persuaded to tell the truth. But, suspect that if police had any new evidence concerning the other three, they would not make this available to after the case. Fingers crossed!
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Did anyone see that silly old duffer with the huge glasses on BBC news?
He was going on about it being a cover up cos they were
s or something 
I just thought...you silly silly Man. I suspect he'll regret saying that once the local scum find where he lives!
Pretty sensationalist journalism by the BBC. Haven't watched the 10 o'clock news in a while and it's quite scary how bad it's become. There was no need to put that guy up there, even if he was a racist bigot, they were digging specifically for that word. He was going on about it being a cover up cos they were
s or something I just thought...you silly silly Man. I suspect he'll regret saying that once the local scum find where he lives!
CatJ said:
They aren't saying, other than they have received a number of phone calls in the last 24 hours.
Without concrete "evidence" nothing further will happen. And if there was any such "evidence" the suspects would surely have been charged with the other two. If nothing else UK still has enough double jeopardy law to preclude a retrial without something new and significant coming to light. Despite what some people are saying on the CPS can't just hound a suspect until it gets a guilty verdict. Someone saying "he done it, Sarge" won't change a thing, especially if it's said by one of the guys already convicted who might just be telling porkie pies to distract attention from himself.
For those that haven't notice;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16430633
The Attorney General is to investigate whether the sentences were too lenient following "a" complaint. Interesting. I would have expected the Department for Justice to have politely/impolitely ignored any complaint from an unassociated citizen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16430633
The Attorney General is to investigate whether the sentences were too lenient following "a" complaint. Interesting. I would have expected the Department for Justice to have politely/impolitely ignored any complaint from an unassociated citizen.
Glassman said:
Ignorance alert./
If five people attack a bloke, but one uses a knife to stab and murder the victim, will all five be guilty of murder?
(I haven't followed much of this case - was SL stabbed by them all?)
It depends is the answer. If the initial desire was to, say, frighten the chap and, unknown to the others present, one of the group carried the knife then there is little likelihood of a murder charge being successful. The fact that they didn't try and stop the stabbing might be a consideration.If five people attack a bloke, but one uses a knife to stab and murder the victim, will all five be guilty of murder?
(I haven't followed much of this case - was SL stabbed by them all?)
If the original intended action was to, say, inflict GBH then there is a similarity between the two offences. If it was merely to assault - to put him in fear of being then and there subjected to unlwaful violence - then the answer is probably no. Where do you draw the line? Expensive lawyers will fight over such niceties.
There might be manslaughter to consider as well.
In this case if just one had a knife then the initial intent of the group might be critical. Were they intending to make Lawrence frightened of coming along the street in future?
If the group intended one particular unlawful action and during the course of it the intent of the group changed, resulting in the death of the victim, then there would be a common purpose. However, if one left as the intent changed they would be not guilty.
The interesting part comes if one person did not agree with the new action but stayed despite this but took no part in the assault. The question would arise as to whether his mere presence was sufficient to make him part of the offence.
The only case I have knowledge of is one where one offender was a passenger in a stolen car. He got in not knowing it was stolen but found out just after it started moving. The vehicle stopped at traffic lights but the chap did not get out. It would seem as if this, to anyone sensible, would amount to 'allowing' but the court felt otherwise. The suggestion of an appeal gave the CPS reason for jollity.
In this case the group would appear to be intent on injuring the victim because of his race. It was expected that it would be a serious assault. Therefore they would, one assumes, be acting in concert. Therefore all guilty.
To give an example: a woman held a girl whilst her husband raped her - the girl. The wife was found guilty of rape. No penetration, not conforming to the then legal definition of rape: 'a man rapes a woman' but still rape. Again penetration but not by the woman but still guilty of rape.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff