Judge releases child killers

Osem · 13-12-2007, 21:37

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143248.stm

Let's just hope the judges 'reasons' don't include going soft on this sort of thing!

**Rob M** · 13-12-2007, 21:46

Quote:

At a hearing before the appeal judges on Thursday Mark Wall QC, challenging the safety of the manslaughter convictions, argued that it could not be established which of the allegedly "unlawful or dangerous" actions, if any of them, had contributed to Mr Norton's heart attack.

Shall I tell you which of the 'unlawful or dangerous' actions is was, Mark Wall QC? It was the 'unlawful (and)or dangerous' action of attacking someone with stones and lobbing them at their head! If you'd like to pull your head out of your ass I'll be more than happy to demonstrate the principle to you just in case you don't bloody get it!

Yes, they are children, but don't try to tell me they didn't know what they were doing. BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIONS A MAN DIED! They may not have intended it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't their fault! Lock them away, take away their 'lives' the way they deprived someone else of his.

**Mick** · 13-12-2007, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Shall I tell you which of the 'unlawful or dangerous' actions is was, Mark Wall QC? It was the 'unlawful (and)or dangerous' action of attacking someone with stones and lobbing them at their head! If you'd like to pull your head out of your ass I'll be more than happy to demonstrate the principle to you just in case you don't bloody get it!

Yes, they are children, but don't try to tell me they didn't know what they were doing. BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIONS A MAN DIED! They may not have intended it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't their fault! Lock them away, take away their 'lives' the way they deprived someone else of his.

I bet the parents of these young criminal offspring are now devising christmas plans, now that they have conveniently been released 12 days before Christmas, has a corny ring to it doesn't it?

Sad state of affairs, lets all take pot shots at this stupid QC, who quite frankly needs to remove himself from office with immediate effect but then again its becoming the norm around these parts where doing the crime, doesn't necessarily get you the time.

BBKing · 13-12-2007, 22:21

Quote:

Judge releases child killers

Hmm. It was always a faintly dodgy case for manslaughter.

Raistlin, do you want a quick lecture on what QCs are for in an adversarial justice system? No, thought not. Do you want to wait for the judge's legal opinion* before passing us your thoughts? No, thought not. Do you want to wait for the outcome of the violent disorder charge? No, thought not.

* Which may well not agree with the part of Mr. Wall's legal argument the BBC have reported, we don't know.

In other legal quashing news, Robert Morgan had his 2 manslaughter convictions overturned, but for some reason that didn't get people outraged on here.

**Mick** · 13-12-2007, 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Hmm. It was always a faintly dodgy case for manslaughter.

Rubbish - it was clear cut and they were convicted of the crime. Trial by jury.

RizzyKing · 14-12-2007, 11:13

I am not a lawyer or anything legal but my understanding of manslaughter has always been it applies where actions taken by someone whether intentional or not result in the death of someone. These little (don't want to get told off for bad language) brats stoned this man and caused his death so they damn well should be charged for manslaughter. I cannot believe anyone can not see that or in anyway defend this. While i know some on here see most things as a media conspiracy there is actually a problem in this country and we need to get it sorted out quickly before it gets bigger. This man's family will be having a xmas this year without him because of these kids lets think a little more about victims shall we i know it's not the done thing anymore but lets start a trend.

rick47 · 14-12-2007, 11:23

Keep them in prison............................................ ......at least 20 years

handyman · 14-12-2007, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

Rubbish - it was clear cut and they were convicted of the crime. Trial by jury.

There was me thinking that that was an on topic post and as such abides by the forum rules.

**Derek S** · 14-12-2007, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Hmm. It was always a faintly dodgy case for manslaughter.

Now I'm not really up to speed on the English legal system but Manslaughter seems to be defined as:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPS

1. Involuntary manslaughter is killing without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.
2. There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:
* that caused by the defendant's gross negligence and
* that caused by his unlawful act.
*snip*
# This is where the killing is the result of:

* the defendant's unlawful act (not omission),
* where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to,
* the risk of some physical harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm â€“ R v Williams & Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183,
* whether or not the defendant realised this.

So based on that I'd say killing someone as a result of throwing stones at them and hitting them (covers the 'some physical harm' section) covers all the bases for manslaughter.
I think the jury came to the same conclusion.

Still I'm not surprised considering under Scottish law people can get stabbed several times and their head jumped up and down on and the courts still accept their death wasn't intentional.

foreverwar · 14-12-2007, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

..snippety snip...
Still I'm not surprised considering under Scottish law people can get stabbed several times and their head jumped up and down on and the courts still accept their death wasn't intentional.

To be fair, when I went to school in Govan, that was being friendly......

If they decided they didn't like, it got serious.

budwieser · 14-12-2007, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Hmm. It was always a faintly dodgy case for manslaughter.

Raistlin, do you want a quick lecture on what QCs are for in an adversarial justice system? No, thought not. Do you want to wait for the judge's legal opinion* before passing us your thoughts? No, thought not. Do you want to wait for the outcome of the violent disorder charge? No, thought not.

* Which may well not agree with the part of Mr. Wall's legal argument the BBC have reported, we don't know.

In other legal quashing news, Robert Morgan had his 2 manslaughter convictions overturned, but for some reason that didn't get people outraged on here.

Sorry to say it mate, But you`re talking complete *****!
If someone attacks some innocent party and they die, whether they intended them to die or not, They are guilty at the very least of manslaughter, if not murder.
How can you post such crap.
Are you a social worker by any chance? Or just another "Bleeding Heart" do gooder.

**Paul M** · 14-12-2007, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by handyman

There was me thinking that that was an on topic post and as such abides by the forum rules.

The CF team will decide what abides by the rules. None of your post was on topic, and I've removed the second half. I've left the first bit simply so I can quote it for this reply.

JFYI, Mods & Admins are perfectly entitled to post their views as well, and Micks post was about the topic as well as responding to another member. If you feel a post is breaking a rule then we have a nifty little feature called "Report Post" - please use that in future.

mrmistoffelees · 16-12-2007, 21:20

Was the act of throwing the stones proved conclusivily to lead to the mans manslaughter ? If yes then convicition secured. If not, as would appear to be the case it cannot be proven then how can the conviction be upheld ?

Trial by jury does not guarantee a sound conviction, if it did there would not be so many miscarriages of justice would it ?

The release of these 'killers' appears to depend nothing more on a legal technicality

Osem · 12-01-2008, 14:03

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

"...tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime...."

Yeah right!

tweetypie/8 · 12-01-2008, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Hmm. It was always a faintly dodgy case for manslaughter.

Raistlin, do you want a quick lecture on what QCs are for in an adversarial justice system? No, thought not. Do you want to wait for the judge's legal opinion* before passing us your thoughts? No, thought not. Do you want to wait for the outcome of the violent disorder charge? No, thought not.

* Which may well not agree with the part of Mr. Wall's legal argument the BBC have reported, we don't know.

In other legal quashing news, Robert Morgan had his 2 manslaughter convictions overturned, but for some reason that didn't get people outraged on here.

[Admin Edit: Swearing in posts is not permitted]