Eagle Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 Noting the minimum 10 & 15 year sentences handed out to the convicted Tonbridge robbers,the Warrington murderers must receive more to prove that a life is more valuable than the loot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve the Original Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 Eagle It will never happen, three years and that in youth custody and thats if they are unlucky. Lets face it the punishment never fits the crime anymore and the kids know they will get lightly whatever they do, all the they have to do is cry my dad hit me on the bum when i was two and now i am severly traumatised... Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Notice, within a year of being sentenced; the Newlove killers are appealing their sentence; how/why? If the original Judge applied the normal tarrif (which most would claim to be too lenient); what excuse can there be for an appeal, other than for tax=payers to boost the earnings of the legal profession? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 They need stringing up. Simple answer. There wouldn't be any appeals then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 That won't happen Baz; my point is, why/how in such a short space of time, do they get the right to appeal against a properly arrived at conviction and sentence - it's just more of our cash being spent on grubby lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 The appeal will be based on comparable cases. As the judiciary are inept at providing consistency then the CPS would have trouble in saying no to a potential appeal. However those boys be warned. On appeal a judge (no jury) has a right to lower and RAISE tarrifs. With no lack of remorse shown at trial by any of these and a history I think that risk of a rise is higher than normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 IF Judges are applying standard tariffs, I see no reason (in such a short space of time) for an appeal, unless the original trial decision is found to be legally unsafe - just a waste of our money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 1 is an appeal on conviction and both on sentence. An appeal (or leave to appeal) can be made immediately before the trial judge or within 14 days thereafter. Those are the rules. Other appeals later involve other legistltion relatign to overturnign unsafe convictions. An appeal on sentance can only be made if the judge has erred in law or erred based on the facts. I suspect the conviction apepal is latter and the tarrif appeal is former. As I said, there is such diversity in sentances and tarrifs that virtually all tarrifs coudl eb subejct to appeal. The risk is they up it which they may well in this case. If the apepal is unfouned and has little merit, this increases the risk. To appeal on conviction requires pretty good evidence to support either a reduced gultiy plea i.e. manslaughter or dismissal in its entirety. If not then as stated, the risk of an increase goes up. Lets wait and see what they say in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.