Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Gary Dobson and David Norris have been found guilty of Stephen Lawrence's murder so I hear! They will be sentenced on Wed apparently.

Finally!


Even coming at the end of 2012 that would have been some of the best news this year. ?I hope the sentence reflects their lying and overdue nature of their incarceration. ?Next the Acourts and Knight ?

That would be a fine icing on the cake.

A pleasing piece of news, but do not expect Norris to grass. Dobson perhaps but sadly, they will have friends on the inside. Of course they will have plenty of enemies too, but Norris' old man is a big face apparently.


Would love to see those Acourt scum get theirs to be honest.

Really thought it would not happen from reading the newspaper articles. Sounded like the defence was casting a lot of doubt on the evidence storage. But, seems the Met pulled it around. Now for the other two...


sadly, they will have friends on the inside


If they don't then hopefully they will have lots and lots of time in there to make some.

PaulK: "Here we go .."


Yep here they go condemning racist swine for the, er, racist swine that they are.

There's been a LOT of disappointment amongst decent folks over the lack of convictions / failed trial a few years ago. This has led to resentment and suspicion of the legal system. Finally technical advances mean at least two of the five will go down. There's relief and satisfaction that men who blatantly murdered a guy and got away with lies are finally going to prison. My relief and satisfaction is increased many fold each time I sit next to a racist dick head on a bus or hear one in a bar.

Remember the Jill Dando murder? Barry George's conviction was overturned on Appeal grounds that the prosecution's forensic evidence was contaminated.


George's Appeal ruling and today's convictions are inconsistent. Expect to see Norris and Dobson Appealing their convictions in due course.

I think Hal is right in that they will appeal if given the permission to do so, but new evidence casting doubt on their convictions would have to come to light first. The crucial difference between the Barry George case and this one though is that the prosecution could prove that the speck of blood found on clothing was fresh at the time of impact and that it could only have come from the crime scene itself...making contamination highly unlikely. I don't know the ins and outs of how a forensic scientist goes about proving that but that is not something that could have been said beyond doubt about the speck of gunpowder found on Barry Gearge's clothing for example.


The other thing is that they will be sentenced according to the rules in the year of the murder. Both men were juveniles at the time and will be sentenced as juveniles. I fully expect controversy when the sentences are passed. They won't be getting any 25 year life sentences.

This was a new trial, not a retrial....why would they not be sentenced as adults?


I fully expect them to receive the mandatory life sentence, it is up to the judge to determine the minimum tariff.


I doubt they will be treated leniently on parole attempts either.

Fresh Evidence for an Appeal is only one expert's contradictory opinion away.


Regarding the bloodstain, I don't think the prosecution proved, in a scientific sense, anything of the sort. Rather, it seems to me that no defence experts were retained to experimentally confirm or refute the opinions of the prosecution's experts.


In any event, the Law Commission's recent proposals on wrongful convictions and acquittals based on flawed expert evidence should figure prominently in any forthcoming Appeals.


The failure to prosecute the original suspects at the time remains the real scandal that has never been adequately addressed, in my view.


ETA: For those interested:-

The Consultation Paper: The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales

The Law Commission's Proposals: Expert Evidence In Criminal Proceedings In England And Wales

Let's wait and see..........


I suspect we will see some sleight of hand, but if not the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 comes into play and that states:


"Where a person convicted of murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed, the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty?s pleasure."


That can be as long as the powers that be want it to be......

Except that act didn't exist in 1993 and so can't be used for any crimes prior to 2000. Today leading Police experts and legal experts (including Michael Mansfield) have all pointed out that they can only be sentenced according to the law at the time. I think they perhaps know what they are talking about.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Then that law should have been changed as well as

> the double jeopardy legislation.



What a silly comment. New law is generally not retrospective for a very good reason. We govern our actions by reference to the law applicable at the time the offence is committed and we depart from this principle at our peril. The law on double jeopardy is different.

BBC News reckons about 12 years each.


Personally I think it's bullshit. They may have been 16/17 at the time, but they've been guilty and avoided justice as adults, and should be punished for that. Shame they can't bring some new charge against them for that.

Sounds great - we allow Dobson and Norris to be sent off for a handful of years for a heinous crime and when people are disgusted at the apparent leniency we can tell them "well that's the way the machine works".


Sentencing them as teenagers is not appropriate. They had the chance to be sentenced as teenagers but chose against it didn't they ? They lied and obstructed out of choice. Now I believe they should face sentencing as adults, which is what they are.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What stricter consequences could there be for shoplifting than being put into jail, do you think?
    • Returning to the original question, I had my jabs at Tessa Jowell yesterday. I was early and I was  seen on time, and it was a lovely pharmacist who did them, but the admin beforehand (not by her) was a bit iffy. I was given forms to fill in but not told what to do with them afterwards, so I  presumed I had to take them into the consulting room, as the rest was supposed to be filled in by a clinician, but no! After some time had elapsed and I had found a seat (there was no information on where to sit either, so people were sitting in two separate areas, neither of which had many seats) my name was called and  the forms were taken behind the counter. Be aware if you don't have an appointment - even in the relatively short time I was there, three people turned up without appointments having been sent there by a GP (I presume) or having  previously been  asked by the pharmacy to come  back at a different time, and they were all sent away again because the pharmacy didn't have enough flu vaccine until the following day. I have no idea if this was due to a misunderstanding on the people's side, their GP's or the pharmacy's, but none of them were very happy, and one lady said she "couldn't keep coming back" 😭  At least one of them didn't seem to understand what he was being told, possibly due to a language issue. I felt quite sorry for the pharmacist, who was giving jabs all day on top of her usual workload but still managing to stay cheerful! Though she wasn't the one dealing with the unhappy people! I have a sore arm from the Covid jab (I chose to have the jabs in different arms), but no other ill effects so far, touch wood. 
    • Line speed and the strength of your Wi-Fi signal are two separate things.  The first is determined by the type of connection (fibre/copper etc) to the outside world and the second is the connection between the device (printer/TV/laptop/tablet etc) and the router. If you are connecting a device to the router using cables (as Alec1 is) then this is will give the best possible connection but isn't practical for many without a degree of upheaval and even then not all devices (tablets for example) will allow a wired connection. So you relying on the quality of the Wi-Fi signal from the router to the device and this will depend on the quality of the router, the type of Wi-Fi connection (the frequency), line of sight etc - many different things.  This is why some people opt for a "mesh" type setup which is supposed to give a solid quality of Wi-Fi signal around the house with little or no blackspots.  It's expensive though and still requires the devices that send and receive the signal (like the plug-ins you have) to be wired to the router.
    • We have had a few cat flaps over the years but none have been electronic. They just have a small clip that you turn to lock or open.  Some come with a magnet and a matching magnet that the cat wears on its collar  This prevents other cats entering.  I've not used these as I don't like the idea of a cat wearing a collar. Cats do like to be out at night and you need to encourage yours to return after a late evening sortie. Calling,rustling treat wrappers worked for ours but he seems to have now got into the habit of coming back about 9pm. without this.        
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...