News0 min ago
Skull Cracker On The Run
http://
Am is missing something here ?
This thug at the Old Bailey, in 2002, received 13 life sentences for robbery and 13 concurrent five-year sentences for possessing an imitation firearm. The judge said that he must serve at least 8 years He has now walked out of a open prison, because somebody let him out !
Its difficult to know where to start here, but why, if he was given 13 life sentences and 13 five-year sentences, did the Judge say that he should serve a minimum of 8 years ? If the Judge thinks that he only deserved 8 years, what was the point of all those life sentences ? And why was he allocated to an open prison ?
The mind boggles !
Am is missing something here ?
This thug at the Old Bailey, in 2002, received 13 life sentences for robbery and 13 concurrent five-year sentences for possessing an imitation firearm. The judge said that he must serve at least 8 years He has now walked out of a open prison, because somebody let him out !
Its difficult to know where to start here, but why, if he was given 13 life sentences and 13 five-year sentences, did the Judge say that he should serve a minimum of 8 years ? If the Judge thinks that he only deserved 8 years, what was the point of all those life sentences ? And why was he allocated to an open prison ?
The mind boggles !
Answers
Of course none of us knows the details of “Skullcrus
10:53 Mon 05th May 2014
I am at a loss for words. Which open prison was he in? I hope it is not the one that is not far from us. These judges have a lot to answer for. I don't get it either, 13 life sentences and 13 five year sentences so we go for the easy option of 8 years in an open prison which he has now had enough of and walked out!!!
Of course none of us knows the details of “Skullcrusher’s” offences (and those details would heavily influence the sentence). But this has nothing to do with “Human Rights”. It is a result of sentencing policy devised by the supposedly independent Sentencing Council who issue guidelines by which judges and magistrates are bound. This document gives details of the sentencing guidelines the judge would have used when sentencing this odious creep:
http://
I must say that the sentence (Life, with a minimum of eight years) seems unduly lenient, especially bearing in mind that he began his latest robbery spree whist on parole from a 27 year sentence imposed for similar offences.
Regrettably this demonstrates clearly the pathetic weakness of the authorities to deal adequately with serious crime. The judge was bound by the sentencing guidelines and concurrent sentencing policy dictates that only in exception circumstances can consecutive sentences be imposed for a string of similar offences.
He was in Standford Hill prison on the Isle of Sheppey and was almost certainly being prepared for release. He was actually on “weekend leave”. Again the lack of consideration for the protection of the public is clear as he had gone on the run previously. The establishment is an “open” prison for “Category D” prisoners. The definition of these is :
“Those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape, and are given the privilege of an open prison. Prisoners at 'D Cat' (as it is commonly known) prisons, are, subject to approval, given ROTL (Release On Temporary Licence) to work in the community or to go on 'home leave' once they have passed their FLED (Full Licence Eligibility Dates), which is usually a quarter of the way through the sentence.”
Quite how somebody who had gone AWOL before can be “…reasonably trusted not to try to escape” is a little curious to say the least.
http://
I must say that the sentence (Life, with a minimum of eight years) seems unduly lenient, especially bearing in mind that he began his latest robbery spree whist on parole from a 27 year sentence imposed for similar offences.
Regrettably this demonstrates clearly the pathetic weakness of the authorities to deal adequately with serious crime. The judge was bound by the sentencing guidelines and concurrent sentencing policy dictates that only in exception circumstances can consecutive sentences be imposed for a string of similar offences.
He was in Standford Hill prison on the Isle of Sheppey and was almost certainly being prepared for release. He was actually on “weekend leave”. Again the lack of consideration for the protection of the public is clear as he had gone on the run previously. The establishment is an “open” prison for “Category D” prisoners. The definition of these is :
“Those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape, and are given the privilege of an open prison. Prisoners at 'D Cat' (as it is commonly known) prisons, are, subject to approval, given ROTL (Release On Temporary Licence) to work in the community or to go on 'home leave' once they have passed their FLED (Full Licence Eligibility Dates), which is usually a quarter of the way through the sentence.”
Quite how somebody who had gone AWOL before can be “…reasonably trusted not to try to escape” is a little curious to say the least.
-- answer removed --
A word on consecutive sentences. In 2007 the Court of Appeal dealt with an appellant who objected to being handed consecutive “indeterminate” sentences (“Life“ sentences are indeterminate sentences). The Court clarified the existing guidance on consecutive sentencing by saying:
1) there is nothing unlawful about the imposition of concurrent or consecutive extended sentences under the 2003 Act or the earlier regime. This also applies to concurrent or consecutive sentences of life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection under Chapter 5 of the 2003 Act. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where extended or indeterminate sentences were justified, unless the practical result is manifestly excessive or gives rise to real problems of administration;
2) nonetheless, judges should try to avoid consecutive sentences. In appropriate cases, the custodial term or minimum period within concurrent sentences should be adjusted to reflect the overall criminality where that is possible within other sentencing constraints;
So the judge in this case was following established practice. Where I believe he fell down was that eight years for a string of violent robberies committed by a person with a long history of similar offences and who was on parole from a lengthy sentence for similar crimes was unduly lenient.
1) there is nothing unlawful about the imposition of concurrent or consecutive extended sentences under the 2003 Act or the earlier regime. This also applies to concurrent or consecutive sentences of life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection under Chapter 5 of the 2003 Act. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where extended or indeterminate sentences were justified, unless the practical result is manifestly excessive or gives rise to real problems of administration;
2) nonetheless, judges should try to avoid consecutive sentences. In appropriate cases, the custodial term or minimum period within concurrent sentences should be adjusted to reflect the overall criminality where that is possible within other sentencing constraints;
So the judge in this case was following established practice. Where I believe he fell down was that eight years for a string of violent robberies committed by a person with a long history of similar offences and who was on parole from a lengthy sentence for similar crimes was unduly lenient.
Once again, thanks NJ.
The bit that I am still not sure about was the imposition 13 life sentences. If he was expected to serve just 8 years before being considered for parole, I'm not clear on why 13 sentences were needed, when only one life sentence would have had the same result ? And is it possible to know why the Judge recommended that a minimum of only 8 years was required ? If he gave him 13 sentences, why only 8 years ? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
The bit that I am still not sure about was the imposition 13 life sentences. If he was expected to serve just 8 years before being considered for parole, I'm not clear on why 13 sentences were needed, when only one life sentence would have had the same result ? And is it possible to know why the Judge recommended that a minimum of only 8 years was required ? If he gave him 13 sentences, why only 8 years ? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
There is to be a review apparently :::
http://
A case of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted if ever I hear one.
http://
A case of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted if ever I hear one.
-- answer removed --
Has been caught again, apparently.
http://
Let's hope that "lessons will be learnt", eh?
http://
Let's hope that "lessons will be learnt", eh?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.