Missing Woman Sarah Everard

[AJL308]

Durzel said:

flashbang said:

Stedman said:

Give over, this isn't a speeding offence

You don't think his barrister will do his best to get him the lightest sentence?

That’s his/her job. Everyone has the right to a robust defence.

There’s too much public interest in this for a “soft” sentence. His position as a Police officer, someone who is in a position of power, authority and trust, will go against him too.

I reckon that even if he gets the murder charge bumped and ends up with manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility he's still looking at a huge sentence. Even if for some some utterly bizarre reason the charges related to her death go away (can't think why they would) and he's convicted solely on what he's admitted to so far then he'll still get life and will do at least 25+ years. There will be outrage if he doesn't.

[anonymous-user]

AJL308 said:

Exactly, the salient words being ...by force or fraud.... If you unknowingly lock someone in your truck there is no force and there is no fraud.

I would suggest locking someone into a place could be considered 'force', because it compels you to stay in a place against your will, if done knowingly or not. Still slightly unsure if in my 'locked in a lorry' example that not knowing someone is there is a lawful excuse, as simple unawareness of something isn't always a lawful excuse in other areas of law. It's all academic anyway, I expect it's fairly nailed-on for the accused in this thread. Thanks to those who clarified the points though.

[M4cruiser]

AJL308 said:

Even if for some some utterly bizarre reason the charges related to her death go away (can't think why they would) and he's convicted solely on what he's admitted to so far then he'll still get life and will do at least 25+ years. There will be outrage if he doesn't.

Undoubtedly there's a public expectation that he will be locked up for a long time. There is huge public interest in this case.
The details are almost irrelevant it seems, from the media reports today. What matters is that her life was ended suddenly and violently by him. Keeping penalties in proportion, as a deterrent as well as a penalty, is important, and this crime is about as horrific as it gets.

[crofty1984]

JeffreyD said:

joshleb said:

I just don't see how barristers and the like can defend people who admit to what they've done, trying to minimise their time etc.

If someone has admitted their offence a barrister can't argue that they are innocent of the crime.

They argue on their behalf about matters of law surrounding the sentencing.

Does that matter whether it's in a court of law?
"I plead guilty your honour" now let's see about minimising the sentence - that's simple enough.

But what if the defendant says to his barrister behind closed doors days before the trial "Yes, I definitely murdered that person. I wanted to do them harm, planned it, got a weapon and then killed them intentionally" - can the barrister try to argue the case that they're not guilty if they plead not guilty in court?

I mean from a legal point of view, rather than morally.

[PurpleTurtle]

Dibble said:

AJL308 said:

Without any shadow of a doubt. He's admitted kidnapping a woman off the street and raping her. He's also admitted that he "caused" her death. She died from a compression of the neck, according to the reports. I don't see how he'll avoid a murder conviction here - you don't accidentally compress someone's neck. He'll get life with a minimum term somewhere north of 30 years, I reckon. Realistically he'll never be let out.

I also think it pretty much goes without saying that a lot more about him is going to come out when the trial is concluded. We know he has a history of flashing but there will be much more. People who grab young women from the street who then rape and murder them do take up abduction, rape and murder overnight.

I suspect the prosecution will want to adduce as much bad character evidence about him as possible. BCE doesn’t just include previous convictions, it can include intelligence reports, work related complaints, inappropriate “banter” with/to colleagues, getting a bit too “touchy feely” on a shift night out… I’d guess the MPS professional standards mob will be going over his entire career with an extremely fine toothed comb. Obviously, some stuff may only be obvious with thee benefit if hindsight, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the prosecution try their absolute best t9 include everything that’s remotely relevant.

My thoughts entirely.

Interesting one about his intent to murder. He had finished his shift in the afternoon, but is there near Clapham Common at approx 9:30pm at night in a Vauxhall Astra hired from Dover. It says a lot about premeditated planning, that he had the presence of mind to do that to apparently hide his tracks, but similarly must have been abundantly aware that the streets of London are covered with fixed CCTV and mobile vehicle cameras, an incredibly risky thing to do. Perhaps the risk was all part of it for him.

I very much suspect this was not his first time offence, interesting to see which other women have come forward since his arrest.

[AJL308]

crofty1984 said:

JeffreyD said:

joshleb said:

I just don't see how barristers and the like can defend people who admit to what they've done, trying to minimise their time etc.

If someone has admitted their offence a barrister can't argue that they are innocent of the crime.

They argue on their behalf about matters of law surrounding the sentencing.

Does that matter whether it's in a court of law?
"I plead guilty your honour" now let's see about minimising the sentence - that's simple enough.

But what if the defendant says to his barrister behind closed doors days before the trial "Yes, I definitely murdered that person. I wanted to do them harm, planned it, got a weapon and then killed them intentionally" - can the barrister try to argue the case that they're not guilty if they plead not guilty in court?

I mean from a legal point of view, rather than morally.

No, I don't think they can. A barrister has duty to the court as well as to his client.

I suppose he could if he believed that his client wasn't telling the truth about being guilty.

[Durzel]

I'm probably wrong but assuming the conversation met the standard for privileged information the barrister (or whoever is representing) would have the option of either:

- Defending the client to the best of their ability (it is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence)
- Withdrawing from the case

They can't just grass their client up.

[wisbech]

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating other matters sparked by the case, including injuries Couzens sustained while in police custody after his arrest

Sounds like his fellow police officers have already been meting out some unofficial justice... bit silly, given how high profile this case was always going to be

[Dibble]

wisbech said:

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating other matters sparked by the case, including injuries Couzens sustained while in police custody after his arrest

Sounds like his fellow police officers have already been meting out some unofficial justice... bit silly, given how high profile this case was always going to be

I think it was reported at the time he’d self harmed by head butting the cell wall (this isn’t that uncommon, lots of detainees do it). Whether this was the start of a plan to demonstrate “I’m mad, me”, or an actual meltdown after the realisation of what he’d done and where it was likely to go for him, time will tell.

Every custody block where I work is covered with CCTV (image and audio) from outside the van dock, through the charge desk, all the corridors, Intoxilyser room, fingerprint/photo/DNA ROOM, cells, so I’d be extremely surprised if he’d been assaulted by a colleague in the custody office (or anywhere else, for that matter). For something like this, the SIO would want everything captured on body cam from first contact to being put in a cell. I’d expect once he was on constant supervision, officers doing that would be recording everything on BWV in addition to the custody CCTV (including when he was taken to hospital).

I’m not saying police officers have never assault anyone (in fact three (I think) Merseyside officers were very recently prosecuted for just that, with two going to prison and one getting a suspended sentence after going to a domestic, switching the BWV off, assaulting the suspect at scene and then trying to cover it up by saying the cameras had all failed/batteries went flat simultaneously).

Assaulting any prisoner in a murder case in this day and age is pretty unlikely, even more so with such a high profile case. It’d (rightly) be an absolute career ender for anyone involved/trying to cover it up, ideally with prison for them as well.

[bitchstewie]

I think it was reported that it had happened several times?

The tone I took from the reporting was more along the lines of he'd done it to himself than thinking anyone was alleged to have done anything to him especially with it happening more than once (pretty sure it was reported at least a couple of times across a couple of days that he'd been taken to hospital with head injuries).

[Dibble]

I think the IOPC investigation is more likely to look at what risk level he was assessed at when he was brought into custody, whether he was likely to self harm attempt to self harm, the frequency of visits, whether he was on constant supervision, how quickly medical advice was sought, which cell he was put in (near to the desk/staff), why he wasn’t restrained, whether or not he was put in a head guard after the first incidence of him getting injured/injuring himself, if not, why not, whether he’d intimated any MH issues on arrival and the rationale behind all those decisions.

I would be very, very surprised if a police officer/civilian gaoler (if they have those in the Met) has assaulted him at any point.

[Dibble]

bhstewie said:

I think it was reported that it had happened several times?

The tone I took from the reporting was more along the lines of he'd done it to himself than thinking anyone was alleged to have done anything to him especially with it happening more than once (pretty sure it was reported at least a couple of times across a couple of days that he'd been taken to hospital with head injuries).

I remember two occasions of him being reported as going to hospital (my memory might not be 100% on that). The IOPC will look at why he was able to get injured twice and what level of supervision/restraint he was under after the first incident.

It might well be that everything possible and reasonable was done by the custody staff and it is just an outlier that he was determined to injure himself, no matter what. Short of physically restraining him constantly while in custody, it’s pretty hard to mitigate against and then you’re open to criticism that constant restraint is excessive and/or disproportionate to the assessed/perceived risk…

[wisbech]

Dibble said:

I think the IOPC investigation is more likely to look at what risk level he was assessed at when he was brought into custody, whether he was likely to self harm attempt to self harm, the frequency of visits, whether he was on constant supervision, how quickly medical advice was sought, which cell he was put in (near to the desk/staff), why he wasn’t restrained, whether or not he was put in a head guard after the first incidence of him getting injured/injuring himself, if not, why not, whether he’d intimated any MH issues on arrival and the rationale behind all those decisions.

I would be very, very surprised if a police officer/civilian gaoler (if they have those in the Met) has assaulted him at any point.

Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated

[XCP]

I'd have had him on constant. Having said that if someone is really determined to self harm, it is really really difficult to prevent.

[eldar]

Dibble said:

I think it was reported at the time he’d self harmed by head butting the cell wall (this isn’t that uncommon, lots of detainees do it). Whether this was the start of a plan to demonstrate “I’m mad, me”, or an actual meltdown after the realisation of what he’d done and where it was likely to go for him, time will tell.

Every custody block where I work is covered with CCTV (image and audio) from outside the van dock, through the charge desk, all the corridors, Intoxilyser room, fingerprint/photo/DNA ROOM, cells, so I’d be extremely surprised if he’d been assaulted by a colleague in the custody office (or anywhere else, for that matter). For something like this, the SIO would want everything captured on body cam from first contact to being put in a cell. I’d expect once he was on constant supervision, officers doing that would be recording everything on BWV in addition to the custody CCTV (including when he was taken to hospital).

I’m not saying police officers have never assault anyone (in fact three (I think) Merseyside officers were very recently prosecuted for just that, with two going to prison and one getting a suspended sentence after going to a domestic, switching the BWV off, assaulting the suspect at scene and then trying to cover it up by saying the cameras had all failed/batteries went flat simultaneously).

Assaulting any prisoner in a murder case in this day and age is pretty unlikely, even more so with such a high profile case. It’d (rightly) be an absolute career ender for anyone involved/trying to cover it up, ideally with prison for them as well.

I spent 8 years unannounced and randomly turning up at custody suites to make sure the detainees weren't being beaten up. Boringly, they weren't, most complaints were not being allowed to smoke, take their "medicine" or have pizza for supper*.

• i recommend the Kosher diet if detained, its usually fresh, rather than microwaved.

[Derek Smith]

XCP said:

I'd have had him on constant. Having said that if someone is really determined to self harm, it is really really difficult to prevent.

This every time, for both points. Any gaoler is, properly, concerned about the welfare of his detainees and not only because it is his neck on the line.

Even with constant CCTV, there's always the chance of one's attention being deflected onto something else for a few seconds. And that's all it takes.

[Derek Smith]

eldar said:

I spent 8 years unannounced and randomly turning up at custody suites to make sure the detainees weren't being beaten up. Boringly, they weren't, most complaints were not being allowed to smoke, take their "medicine" or have pizza for supper*.

• i recommend the Kosher diet if detained, its usually fresh, rather than microwaved.

Thanks for taking the trouble.

It's received little in the way of publicity, yet such volunteering is a reassurance to all sides.

[milkround]

eldar said:

I spent 8 years unannounced and randomly turning up at custody suites to make sure the detainees weren't being beaten up. Boringly, they weren't, most complaints were not being allowed to smoke, take their "medicine" or have pizza for supper*.

• i recommend the Kosher diet if detained, its usually fresh, rather than microwaved.

Why can you not have your medication? I’m sure there is a reasonable answer. But it seems a bit harsh to me.

I’ve recently hurt my shoulder. And have been prescribed some medicine to relax the muscle. Without the meds I’d be highly uncomfortable. And I’m not sure I’d think it was fair to leave me like that just because I’d been arrested.

I can sort of see why they’d not want me to take the codene as it tools knock you out a bit. But the naproxen just stops pain and doesn’t make your drowsy.

[Northernboy]

milkround said:

Why can you not have your medication? I’m sure there is a reasonable answer. But it seems a bit harsh to me.

The inverted commas suggest that the “medicine” is not exactly a prescription.

[boyse7en]

milkround said:

eldar said:

I spent 8 years unannounced and randomly turning up at custody suites to make sure the detainees weren't being beaten up. Boringly, they weren't, most complaints were not being allowed to smoke, take their "medicine" or have pizza for supper*.

• i recommend the Kosher diet if detained, its usually fresh, rather than microwaved.

Why can you not have your medication? I’m sure there is a reasonable answer. But it seems a bit harsh to me.

I’ve recently hurt my shoulder. And have been prescribed some medicine to relax the muscle. Without the meds I’d be highly uncomfortable. And I’m not sure I’d think it was fair to leave me like that just because I’d been arrested.

I can sort of see why they’d not want me to take the codene as it tools knock you out a bit. But the naproxen just stops pain and doesn’t make your drowsy.

I'm going to guess that a lot of the medicine they required was more recreational than medical