Bullies jailed for firework death
Discussion
I can't help but think the sentences should haven at least an extra ten years added.
C4 News said:
Three teenagers who killed a woman by pushing a firework through her letterbox following a string of bullying attacks on her son have been jailed.
Mary Fox, 59, died in the fire in Bodmin, Cornwall on Bonfire Night last year after the Silver Dart was thrust inside to "frighten" the family as part of a prank aimed at her son Raum, then 17, who escaped through a window of the blazing council home in Wallace Road.
Owen Hewitt 18, and Samuel Luckes, 17, were each jailed for seven years at Truro Crown Court for the manslaughter of the mother of nine. They were also each sentenced to three years concurrently for committing arson being reckless as to whether Raum's life was endangered and a third teenager, Ryan Croft, 18, who pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing, was given five years for manslaughter and two years for arson, also running concurrently.
Mary Fox, 59, died in the fire in Bodmin, Cornwall on Bonfire Night last year after the Silver Dart was thrust inside to "frighten" the family as part of a prank aimed at her son Raum, then 17, who escaped through a window of the blazing council home in Wallace Road.
Owen Hewitt 18, and Samuel Luckes, 17, were each jailed for seven years at Truro Crown Court for the manslaughter of the mother of nine. They were also each sentenced to three years concurrently for committing arson being reckless as to whether Raum's life was endangered and a third teenager, Ryan Croft, 18, who pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing, was given five years for manslaughter and two years for arson, also running concurrently.
10 Pence Short said:
Whilst the outcome was horrific, I'm not convinced the intention of the bullies was to end anyone's life. It was reckless and stupid and the sentences reflect that suitably, in my opinion.
No , it should have been more , they killed a woman in the cource of having a laff 10 Pence Short said:
Whilst the outcome was horrific, I'm not convinced the intention of the bullies was to end anyone's life. It was reckless and stupid and the sentences reflect that suitably, in my opinion.
I think they should have got double their sentences. Perhaps it would make others think before doing such things in future.Lost soul said:
10 Pence Short said:
Whilst the outcome was horrific, I'm not convinced the intention of the bullies was to end anyone's life. It was reckless and stupid and the sentences reflect that suitably, in my opinion.
No , it should have been more , they killed a woman in the cource of having a laff If the court, with access to all the evidence, sees fit to sentence them in this way then I don't see how I'm any better to judge it?
Have you seen all the evidence in the prosecution and defence bundles? Have you read the PSRs? Have you access to their previous offending records?
I should have found a better quote. It appears there was more to this than just a prank.
The Times said:
The trio snapped the stick off the rocket so that it would “skip around” and let off a shower of sparks to cause the maximum damage. Mrs Fox, a mother of nine who had also been abused in the streets around her home, was so scared about possible attacks that she had barricaded her door and letterbox with boxes, which caught fire when the rocket hit the floor.
A blaze ripped through the family home while Mrs Fox and Raum, then 17, were upstairs. He jumped to safety from an upstairs window but, despite his pleading with her to follow, she was trapped and died in the fire.
CCTV footage showed that while she was dying the gang were casually eating at a local takeaway. They later returned to the scene and when they found out she had died were heard “laughing and joking”.
Paul Dunkels, QC, for the prosecution, told the court that Raum had been bullied at school and the house was chosen because of who lived there. “He was pushed, struck and verbally abused. This went on until he left school and carried on afterwards. Mary Fox was also subjected to abuse.”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7139657.eceA blaze ripped through the family home while Mrs Fox and Raum, then 17, were upstairs. He jumped to safety from an upstairs window but, despite his pleading with her to follow, she was trapped and died in the fire.
CCTV footage showed that while she was dying the gang were casually eating at a local takeaway. They later returned to the scene and when they found out she had died were heard “laughing and joking”.
Paul Dunkels, QC, for the prosecution, told the court that Raum had been bullied at school and the house was chosen because of who lived there. “He was pushed, struck and verbally abused. This went on until he left school and carried on afterwards. Mary Fox was also subjected to abuse.”.
Lost soul said:
10 Pence Short said:
Whilst the outcome was horrific, I'm not convinced the intention of the bullies was to end anyone's life. It was reckless and stupid and the sentences reflect that suitably, in my opinion.
No , it should have been more , they killed a woman in the cource of having a laff 
Jasandjules said:
10 Pence Short said:
Whilst the outcome was horrific, I'm not convinced the intention of the bullies was to end anyone's life. It was reckless and stupid and the sentences reflect that suitably, in my opinion.
I think they should have got double their sentences. Perhaps it would make others think before doing such things in future.I'm not defending what they've done or sympathising with them in any way. It's dispicable.
But the law has to work on the intentions, culpability, severity of the outcome and the danger to the public.
The press only exist to create headlines and sell papers, so it's in their interests to ignore the finer detail and concentrate on the indignation and shock. Fortunately, in most cases, the Courts are able to see and hear all the available evidence and an isolated judgement made with that in hand.
Having been on the wrong end of a newspaper report and the having all the facts to hand, I understand how little regard there is for objectivity when it comes to court reporting and how easily a slant is put on something that wasn't even prevalent in court.
But the law has to work on the intentions, culpability, severity of the outcome and the danger to the public.
The press only exist to create headlines and sell papers, so it's in their interests to ignore the finer detail and concentrate on the indignation and shock. Fortunately, in most cases, the Courts are able to see and hear all the available evidence and an isolated judgement made with that in hand.
Having been on the wrong end of a newspaper report and the having all the facts to hand, I understand how little regard there is for objectivity when it comes to court reporting and how easily a slant is put on something that wasn't even prevalent in court.
I think the two b
ds responsible for this should be stoned to death. They killed a kids mum for fk sake!
The real victim here is the 17 year old who lost his mother due to bullying at one of the most crucial and important stages of his accademic life (which could likely be ruined now) . All because said bullies think they are hard!
Well, let them be hard then. Lets hope they end up in a real nasty prison and get get bummed by big mike.
ds responsible for this should be stoned to death. They killed a kids mum for fk sake! The real victim here is the 17 year old who lost his mother due to bullying at one of the most crucial and important stages of his accademic life (which could likely be ruined now) . All because said bullies think they are hard!
Well, let them be hard then. Lets hope they end up in a real nasty prison and get get bummed by big mike.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 29th May 10:55
10 Pence Short said:
I'm not defending what they've done or sympathising with them in any way. It's dispicable.
But the law has to work on the intentions, culpability, severity of the outcome and the danger to the public.
The press only exist to create headlines and sell papers, so it's in their interests to ignore the finer detail and concentrate on the indignation and shock. Fortunately, in most cases, the Courts are able to see and hear all the available evidence and an isolated judgement made with that in hand.
Having been on the wrong end of a newspaper report and the having all the facts to hand, I understand how little regard there is for objectivity when it comes to court reporting and how easily a slant is put on something that wasn't even prevalent in court.
Agreed.But the law has to work on the intentions, culpability, severity of the outcome and the danger to the public.
The press only exist to create headlines and sell papers, so it's in their interests to ignore the finer detail and concentrate on the indignation and shock. Fortunately, in most cases, the Courts are able to see and hear all the available evidence and an isolated judgement made with that in hand.
Having been on the wrong end of a newspaper report and the having all the facts to hand, I understand how little regard there is for objectivity when it comes to court reporting and how easily a slant is put on something that wasn't even prevalent in court.
As for one of the posts above, pulling a chair out from behind someone is a prank that a normal kid would do. These kids pulled a far worse prank and got 7 years for it.
If you pulled a chair out from behind someone and they cracked the back of their head on it and died, would you expect to be charged with murder?
Don't let emotional reactions get in the way of applying logic to a situation. Those 2 youngsters didn't go out with the intention of killing anyone, hence they received a charge of manslaughter. And rightly so. Our justice system needs to stand above irrational Daily Mail judgements and look at the facts and intentions of the people involved.
Edited by Shay HTFC on Saturday 29th May 10:58
Magog said:
TheCarpetCleaner said:
You pull a chair out from under someone as they are sitting down to have a laff if you are that way inclined for humor.
Someone my uncle worked with in the past has spent a good proportion of his life in a wheelchair because of this particular prank.Article said:
Owen Hewitt 18, and Samuel Luckes, 17, were each jailed for seven years at Truro Crown Court for the manslaughter of the mother of nine. They were also each sentenced to three years concurrently for committing arson being reckless as to whether Raum's life was endangered and a third teenager, Ryan Croft, 18, who pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing, was given five years for manslaughter and two years for arson, also running concurrently.
Concurrent sentences - never got the point of this.Why not always consecutive?
He now has no real front teeth after the chair hit him 
Shay HTFC said:
If you pulled a chair out from behind someone and they cracked the back of their head on it and died, would you expect to be charged with murder?
Don't let emotional reactions get in the way of applying logic to a situation. Those 2 youngsters didn't go out with the intention of killing anyone, hence they received a charge of manslaughter. And rightly so. Our justice system needs to stand above irrational Daily Mail judgements and look at the facts and intentions of the people involved.
This was not just a prank though. This was a rocket not a simple banger and it was part of prolonged and sustained period of bullying against the boy and his family. As we have seen with other recent cases prolonged bullying can ruin lives and sometimes lead to suicide. I feel the outrage expressed in this instance both by the press and individual comment is well warranted.Don't let emotional reactions get in the way of applying logic to a situation. Those 2 youngsters didn't go out with the intention of killing anyone, hence they received a charge of manslaughter. And rightly so. Our justice system needs to stand above irrational Daily Mail judgements and look at the facts and intentions of the people involved.
colonel c said:
Shay HTFC said:
If you pulled a chair out from behind someone and they cracked the back of their head on it and died, would you expect to be charged with murder?
Don't let emotional reactions get in the way of applying logic to a situation. Those 2 youngsters didn't go out with the intention of killing anyone, hence they received a charge of manslaughter. And rightly so. Our justice system needs to stand above irrational Daily Mail judgements and look at the facts and intentions of the people involved.
This was not just a prank though. This was a rocket not a simple banger and it was part of prolonged and sustained period of bullying against the boy and his family. As we have seen with other recent cases prolonged bullying can ruin lives and sometimes lead to suicide. I feel the outrage expressed in this instance both by the press and individual comment is well warranted.Don't let emotional reactions get in the way of applying logic to a situation. Those 2 youngsters didn't go out with the intention of killing anyone, hence they received a charge of manslaughter. And rightly so. Our justice system needs to stand above irrational Daily Mail judgements and look at the facts and intentions of the people involved.
There could have been other people in the house, including children (nephew or niece or something) that could have perished - or the houses next door could have gone up.
There is no way you put a lit firework through someones door without thinking there will be anything less than utter mayhem.
colonel c said:
This was not just a prank though. This was a rocket not a simple banger and it was part of prolonged and sustained period of bullying against the boy and his family. As we have seen with other recent cases prolonged bullying can ruin lives and sometimes lead to suicide. I feel the outrage expressed in this instance both by the press and individual comment is well warranted.
How many sides of the story have we heard? Do we know that the boys were never provoked or had good reason to dislike the family? Was the dead woman or any of her family a saint? Did they have records as long as your arm? We just don't know, and the press certainly won't be interested in telling us, because it would dilute the story.I'm am not saying they were guilty of anything. I am saying there will be two sides to the story and, as is often the case with reporting, we have only really heard one.
What I do know is that the Jury and udge have heard an awful lot of the evidence and have come to conclusions based on that evidence. Without having access to that evidence it's unfair to say whether the sentences are just or otherwise.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff