Is it normal for an expected murderer to be given bail???
Discussion
Quinny said:
Ok,
Apparantly, in this case the crown didn't want to award bail. But the presiding Judge overuled.
I wonder if he feels a bit of a prat now??
Somehow I doubt it.
He has to make a decision based on what's put before him by the prosecution & defence teams. Bail is pretty much a right unless the prosecution can convince the judge that it should not be given in the case.Apparantly, in this case the crown didn't want to award bail. But the presiding Judge overuled.
I wonder if he feels a bit of a prat now??
Somehow I doubt it.
Quinny said:
The thing is Von,
The judge got it very wrong.
The annoying thing for a layman like me is, that there'll probably be no reprecussions for him.
People who have a lot of authority like him just seem to be able to make crap choices, that in this case cost 2 lives. And nothing happens.
And how many people are remanded in custody who'll say they were wrongly there as they would never have interfered with the case or posed a threat to anyone because they were innocent all along ?The judge got it very wrong.
The annoying thing for a layman like me is, that there'll probably be no reprecussions for him.
People who have a lot of authority like him just seem to be able to make crap choices, that in this case cost 2 lives. And nothing happens.
The judge has to make a judgment call based on the case presented to him for & against by the prosecution/defence. Perhaps the defence team presented a rather more convincing argument than the prosecution in relation to the question of bail & anyone listening would have agreed with them in the circumstances. It's never going to be perfect & these things will happen, you are just trying to limit them without trampling over people's freedoms or presumption of innocence.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 14th January 06:58
Sad and distressing for all especially the families and the BIB on here. 
I for one feel badly let down by by this former officer who has now tarnished the entire reputation of the Police. Mud sticks and there are always rotten apples in any barrel, we just have to live with that. With the benefit of hindsight of course bail should not have ben granted to this individual.
I am sure the Judge feels bad enough about it already, and he will certainly be much less inclined to grant bail to any future offenders in similar circs. So the offender in this case has done those the Judge will meet in future no favours. Innocent until proven guilty of course means bail is a difficult call in every case, especially something as serious as this.
I for one feel badly let down by by this former officer who has now tarnished the entire reputation of the Police. Mud sticks and there are always rotten apples in any barrel, we just have to live with that. With the benefit of hindsight of course bail should not have ben granted to this individual.I am sure the Judge feels bad enough about it already, and he will certainly be much less inclined to grant bail to any future offenders in similar circs. So the offender in this case has done those the Judge will meet in future no favours. Innocent until proven guilty of course means bail is a difficult call in every case, especially something as serious as this.
Quinny said:
But what happens to them when they get it wrong?? Not a lot as far as I can tell.
What would you like to happen to this judge?Quinny said:
As a safety officer in a furniture factory, if I got it wrong and it cost someones life, I might be in a bit of trouble
Although I'm not familiar with the laws that apply to your job, I suspect that you would not be guilty of any wrongdoing simply for making a choice that costs someone's life, but you might be guilty if you made that choice on the basis or poor or reckless judgement. The same should apply to the judge in this case.To use an analogy, if a soldier at war kills one of his comrades thinking he is the enemy, does that automatically mean that he has done wrong, or should the way in which he made the judgement to shoot be a factor in determining this?
Surely though people are judged on the consequences of their actions, rather than the actions themselves? I'll give 2 examples.
First one (hope he doesn't mind me mentioning it) - 10 Pence Short's case - lost control of his car on a bend, came to a halt in the middle of the road. Nothing wrong here you might think - but wait. A bike comes round the corner and doesn't have time to stop, hits his car - suddenly his actions have consequences and the penalty is much more serious.
Second one recently in Newport iirc - man punches other man in street fight. Would normally be assault type of charge - but victim lands awkwardly, cracks his head open on the pavement and dies. A terrible case but one where the legal outcome changed based upon the consequences of the initial action.
So - should this judge be "judged" on the consequences of his action, rather than the decision itself?
First one (hope he doesn't mind me mentioning it) - 10 Pence Short's case - lost control of his car on a bend, came to a halt in the middle of the road. Nothing wrong here you might think - but wait. A bike comes round the corner and doesn't have time to stop, hits his car - suddenly his actions have consequences and the penalty is much more serious.
Second one recently in Newport iirc - man punches other man in street fight. Would normally be assault type of charge - but victim lands awkwardly, cracks his head open on the pavement and dies. A terrible case but one where the legal outcome changed based upon the consequences of the initial action.
So - should this judge be "judged" on the consequences of his action, rather than the decision itself?
SamHH said:
Although I'm not familiar with the laws that apply to your job, I suspect that you would not be guilty of any wrongdoing simply for making a choice that costs someone's life, but you might be guilty if you made that choice on the basis or poor or reckless judgement. The same should apply to the judge in this case.
Unless the HSE could stick it on his boss by showing that Quinny had not been properly trained in his job (they like to go for the biggest name they can get, rather than who is actually to blame), then he could well be found guilty, and would certainly have a pretty horendous couple of years. Health and Safety at Work etc Act - burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence, not the way it should be.hornetrider: you have a good point about people being judged on the consequences of their actions rather than the actions themselves. However, in the examples you give, I don't think the people in question were judged solely on the consequences were they? Isn't it the case that they had done something 'wrong' that was then made worse by the consequences?
Edited by SamHH on Monday 14th January 11:46
peterperkins said:
I for one feel badly let down by by this former officer who has now tarnished the entire reputation of the Police.
How exactly ? The things he did were nothing to do with his work and the murders were not comitted in the line of duty. So its hardly tarnishing the reputation of the police now is it. Plenty of people have personal or mental issues leading to some horrible acts including murder,but we dont suddenly decide that the acts of one person in their own time, not work related reflect upon their colleagues. Just another excuse to bash/blame the bib isnt it ?
hornetrider said:
Surely though people are judged on the consequences of their actions, rather than the actions themselves? I'll give 2 examples.
First one (hope he doesn't mind me mentioning it) - 10 Pence Short's case - lost control of his car on a bend, came to a halt in the middle of the road. Nothing wrong here you might think - but wait. A bike comes round the corner and doesn't have time to stop, hits his car - suddenly his actions have consequences and the penalty is much more serious.
Second one recently in Newport iirc - man punches other man in street fight. Would normally be assault type of charge - but victim lands awkwardly, cracks his head open on the pavement and dies. A terrible case but one where the legal outcome changed based upon the consequences of the initial action.
So - should this judge be "judged" on the consequences of his action, rather than the decision itself?
The question is; is it right to judge people on the consequence of their actions? I thought intent was the most important.First one (hope he doesn't mind me mentioning it) - 10 Pence Short's case - lost control of his car on a bend, came to a halt in the middle of the road. Nothing wrong here you might think - but wait. A bike comes round the corner and doesn't have time to stop, hits his car - suddenly his actions have consequences and the penalty is much more serious.
Second one recently in Newport iirc - man punches other man in street fight. Would normally be assault type of charge - but victim lands awkwardly, cracks his head open on the pavement and dies. A terrible case but one where the legal outcome changed based upon the consequences of the initial action.
So - should this judge be "judged" on the consequences of his action, rather than the decision itself?
If we judge on consequences then two people who make the same error can get wildly different punishments? Is that fair?
s2art said:
hornetrider said:
Surely though people are judged on the consequences of their actions, rather than the actions themselves? I'll give 2 examples.
First one (hope he doesn't mind me mentioning it) - 10 Pence Short's case - lost control of his car on a bend, came to a halt in the middle of the road. Nothing wrong here you might think - but wait. A bike comes round the corner and doesn't have time to stop, hits his car - suddenly his actions have consequences and the penalty is much more serious.
Second one recently in Newport iirc - man punches other man in street fight. Would normally be assault type of charge - but victim lands awkwardly, cracks his head open on the pavement and dies. A terrible case but one where the legal outcome changed based upon the consequences of the initial action.
So - should this judge be "judged" on the consequences of his action, rather than the decision itself?
The question is; is it right to judge people on the consequence of their actions? I thought intent was the most important.First one (hope he doesn't mind me mentioning it) - 10 Pence Short's case - lost control of his car on a bend, came to a halt in the middle of the road. Nothing wrong here you might think - but wait. A bike comes round the corner and doesn't have time to stop, hits his car - suddenly his actions have consequences and the penalty is much more serious.
Second one recently in Newport iirc - man punches other man in street fight. Would normally be assault type of charge - but victim lands awkwardly, cracks his head open on the pavement and dies. A terrible case but one where the legal outcome changed based upon the consequences of the initial action.
So - should this judge be "judged" on the consequences of his action, rather than the decision itself?
If we judge on consequences then two people who make the same error can get wildly different punishments? Is that fair?
s2art said:
If we judge on consequences then two people who make the same error can get wildly different punishments? Is that fair?
Well, I can understand why we do, think of victims families etc, but I don't think its actually very fair to do so. I think. Cleverer people than I may put forward a more salient argument for this approach though!allaway said:
[The other question is should bail be given to anyone who is suspected of murder?
I would say no. Very surprised that bail was awarded.vonhosen said:
He has to make a decision based on what's put before him by the prosecution & defence teams. Bail is pretty much a right unless the prosecution can convince the judge that it should not be given in the case.
Which in this case should have been pretty damn straightforward. Accused of Murder = no bail. BUT my understanding is that his brother is a barrister and put up a surety of some kind.
Very sad state of affairs.
i want an aero said:
i waqs gob smacked when i heard this, bet it was because he was a cop
That's got nothing to do with, others get bail in relation to murder.http://www.macclesfield-express.co.uk/news/s/10280...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff