Author Topic: What the hell are the appeals court thinking?  (Read 454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 36107
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
What the hell are the appeals court thinking?
« on: October 29, 2008, 04:06:50 PM »
These animals beat the hell out of a couple because they were dressed as Goths, injuring the woman so badly that she died of her injuries 13 days later. By their actions it is clear that they deserve to be locked up permanently and now the appeals court have reduced the minimum sentence of one of them.

Why? What grounds did you have to reduce his miminum sentence?  cussing:

Quote
One of the teenage boys who kicked a 20-year-old woman to death because she was dressed as a Goth has had his murder sentence reduced.

Ryan Herbert, 16, of Bacup, Lancashire, was ordered to serve 16 years and three months for killing Sophie Lancaster.

Herbert's sentence has been cut by nine months. Brendan Harris, 16, who was sentenced to 18 years for the murder, has failed to have his term reduced.

Ms Lancaster died 13 days after the attack in Stubbylee Park last year.

She was trying to protect her boyfriend Robert Maltby, who survived the attack.

At the Court of Appeal in London the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges cut the minimum term to be served by Herbert to 15 years and six months.

Three other youths involved with Herbert and Harris in the savage attack on Mr Maltby had their sentence appeals rejected by the three judges.

Lord Judge described the attack as "appalling crime".

Harris, Herbert, brothers Joseph and Danny Hulme, and Daniel Mallett had kicked art student Mr Maltby into unconsciousness in the park in August 2007.

All five teenagers were given indeterminate sentences for public protection after pleading guilty to grievous bodily harm with intent in relation to the attack on Mr Maltby.

'Feral thuggery'

The Hulme brothers, aged 16 and 18, of Landgate, Whitworth, near Bacup are each serving a minimum of five years and 10 months.

Mallett, 18, of Rockcliffe Drive, Bacup, is serving four years and four months.

Sentencing the youths at their trial, Judge Anthony Russell QC had described the attacks as "feral thuggery".

The appeals against the sentences he imposed at the Crown Court had mainly centred on the ages of the teenagers.

Dismissing the appeals of four of them, Lord Judge said the appeal of Herbert was being allowed to a "very limited extent".
The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest.

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 153344
  • Reputation: -50
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: What the hell are the appeals court thinking?
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2008, 04:13:32 PM »
 noooo:
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline The Moan Ranger

  • Administrator
  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 13952
  • Reputation: 1
  • No surrender
Re: What the hell are the appeals court thinking?
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2008, 04:19:48 PM »
You cannot use some sort of slide rule to determine custodial duration in these cases.

There is simply no excuse.

The appeal should have been laughed out and the perpetrators simply shot. Gently in the back of the head.

No mercy, set a standard and we will all sleep better at nights. Bastards.

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 36107
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: What the hell are the appeals court thinking?
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2008, 04:24:13 PM »
Certain crimes should be made excempt from the HRA and this is certainly one of them.  Angry9:
The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest.

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 153344
  • Reputation: -50
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: What the hell are the appeals court thinking?
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2008, 04:36:54 PM »
Agreed... hang them...
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline The Moan Ranger

  • Administrator
  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 13952
  • Reputation: 1
  • No surrender
Re: What the hell are the appeals court thinking?
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2008, 04:42:28 PM »
NO Barman. Shoot them. In the back of the head, gently. Make their relatives watch and make them pay for the bullets. And then dump their scum carcasses in land fill whilst the victim's family piss on the scraggy corpse.

Only then, will you get near "closure".

IMHO.

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 36107
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: What the hell are the appeals court thinking?
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2008, 04:46:50 PM »
NO NO NO TMR! NOT gently!
The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest.