I Wondew How Long She Thinks...

[bazwillrun]

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/nov/29/mairead-philpott-appeals-length-sentence


she should get then....afterall she only helped murder six of her children

[sandyRoe]

Wasn't she sentenced for her part in the manslaughter of the children?

[2sp_]

She may have been sentenced to 17 years, but will only serve half of that.

Even if she served the full sentence, it wouldn't be enough in my opinion.

[pixie373]

Is there a chance it might actually be increased?

[bazwillrun]

"Mairead Philpott, 32, was jailed alongside her husband Mick at Nottingham crown court in April after being found guilty of the manslaughter of Jade Philpott and her brothers John, Jack, Jesse, Jayden and Duwayne."

"His wife, who is likely to be released after serving half of her 17-year term, took part in a plan to set fire to the couple's home in Victory Road in an effort to frame his former mistress. The children were aged between five and 13."

so as it stands just over a year for the death of each child...and thats called justice is it !?

[ummmm]

I don't think she's an evil person. She spent years being dominated, controlled and bullied by that vile man.

She wasn't part of the planning, she was made to go along with it and was probably too scared to stand up to him.

Guilty of gross stupidity, being weak and lacking brain cells.

[hc4361]

The hearing is being broadcast. I might watch that.

[pixie373]

That would be fair enough if she had stolen a packet of sweets. It doesn't wash with killing your children. She hasn't been declared insane, so no excuses.

[2sp_]

I do understand that she was controlled by that monster, and I could have felt some pity for her situation but her children are dead. At their hands.

I really can't find any compassion for her.

[ummmm]

I have no compassion for her either.

[VHG]

>>>after all she only helped murder six of her children

She was not charged with murder, and was not found guilty of murder.

Murder is when you set out to kill someone, and they did not set out to kill their children.

They are stupid, yes, and I have no time for her or her husband but it was NOT murder.

[pixie373]

That may be the legal ruling. Setting fire- deliberately - to your house, knowing that your children are asleep upstairs and not getting them out, is not stupidity. It's murder.

[AB Editor]

I understand that the father will not appeal, interesting that he feels he has had the right sentence.

[2sp_]

VHG, the law may saw that it's not murder, but you can't blame people for being horrified by this case and believing that it should have been classed as murder.

I think if they hadn't put on the big show after the fire, if they had admitted what really happened right away then people would be less disgusted. Disgusted to a slightly lesser extent anyway.

[pixie373]

I can't see what she thinks she'll come out to. If i had done that, I'd want to stay there and rot.

[FredPuli43]

What you will see is the court saying that they will treat the application for leave to appeal as the appeal. What then happens is that defence counsel makes the submissions on her behalf and you can guess pretty easily what the court thinks of it all within minutes. Somehow, I don't expect this to last long. She will need substantial new material, not properly raised before, to get anywhere. It can happen, and does, that the single judge has missed something which is important, but it is generally a really uphill struggle to get anywhere

[pixie373]

Might they end up increasing it, Fred? Or will it only be reduced?

[FredPuli43]

Increaee the sentence ? Only if the prosecution has appealed the sentence. The most the court will do otherwise is to remind counsel that time served will not run if the appeal is without merit

[pixie373]

Shame. So there is nothing to lose by appealing anyway? You would think if they are relooking at a case, there would be a possibility for it to go either way.

[andy-hughes]

A brief illustration of human nature -

"All I ever did was try and help people to have a good time ..."

that quote is by Al Capone, one the most notrious, not to say vicious and vindictive criminals in American history.

It illustrates that human nature makes it hard for people to accept that they are inherently evil, and have done terrible things for which they must be punished.

That explains the raison d'etre of the appeal.

But in the world of law, where human nature plays no part, sentences are debated and set by legal minds, without the input of any emotion or revenge - and that is as it should be.

So although Mairead Philpott is entitled legally, if not morally, to appeal her sentence, I would suggest that it is unlikely to be considered for reduction, given the circumstances of the crime for which she was imprisoned.

To address your specific question baz - it is likely that Mairead Philpott does not think she deserves to be in prison at all - but again, her input is not required or included in the judicial system.

[FredPuli43]

It is not often that a case doesn't stop at the single judge refusing leave. Counsel must think there's a bit of a run in it, though I can't see it myself.