Why Are They Overiding The Trial Judge Here?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29734816
The judge said life should mean life so why are our modern do gooders letting this lowlife out?

[ToraToraTora]

perhaps but I haven't sulked off have I?

[jno]

nor admitted error, of course

[Peter Pedant]

me // sorry PP what law is it that says killers must be released? I'm sure that would have been on the news at some point //

good: one of the few times someone has understood what I wrote - possibly because they read it before saying 'whaaaaa... ?'
The new law is that someone has to review a sentence regularly as circumstances change
and it also said that the home secretary who is not judge should not get involved

Human Rights Act and a few others .....

i wonder that you hadnt heard of it
but wonders as they say never cease

[Peter Pedant]

//perhaps but I haven't sulked off have I? //

no I can certify you are here in full-on non-sequitur mode ....

[ToraToraTora]

Ok but were does it say they have to be let out?

[jim360]

They don't "have to be let out". But there's no point in having parole board meetings if it weren't an option for such people to be let out. Equally the parole board could have chosen not to.

[ToraToraTora]

I agree jim, that is not what PP said right at the start of this thread.

[bednobs]

i find this story really puzzling. Murderers are let out of prison every day, and most of them HAVEN'T been in for 50 years. There is never any outcry about them, so why so much with this case?

not that i am saying "other people are let out early, so why shouldn't he" in fact i am saying the exact opposite - if he can be in prison 50 years why can't other murderers?

[ummmm]

Because he's a cop killer.

[Peter Pedant]

// and as police killers were never reprieved (with one notable exception) he would have been hanged. //

which notable one is that ? Craig and Bentley 1952 ?

[Peter Pedant]

Hair splitting TTT

the law has changed - and these sentences have to be reviewed

The review board has certain rules and one of them is NOT - do we have to take into account TTT in a tizz ?

[ToraToraTora]

Me: "The judge said life should mean life so why are our modern do gooders letting this lowlife out? "
my question is clear, PP, at 09:34 yesterday: "because they are required to by new laws we are all required to obey the law TTT" - pretty clear to me you were sayin he had to be let out because it's the law. Own up you were trolling as usual and got caught out, that's why you disappeared for 24 hours, have some bottle for once.

[jno]

so you were wrong about the judge being overridden? Still no update on that. Bottling it, are you? Looks like the whole thread is trolling...

[ToraToraTora]

No, the judge made his hopes quite clear that he thought the guy would never be released. By releasing him they are overriding the spirit of what the judge intended.

[ToraToraTora]

I had No idea that Harry Roberts had a fan club!

[jno]

oh, overriding the spirit, you didn't mention that. Obiter dicta can always be overridden, however, so the news value of that is zero.

[jno]

ah, so now anyone pointing out your ignorance is a member of a Harry Roberts fan club!

Keep digging.

[jim360]

I don't think anyone's a fan of Harry Roberts. Still, like all those who've not been given whole-life tariffs he has a right to parole. Pointing this out doesn't mean that anyone supports him in the slightest. It's pathetic to make that suggestion.

[ToraToraTora]

In my opinion life should mean life, if the judge doesn't want it to mean life then don't sentence them to life, give them an actual tarrif. Not difficult is it.

[jim360]

In turn doesn't that defeat your own argument? Evidently the judge thought that while he should never be released he accepted that this was a decision for the parole board in the future. In which case this decision is entirely within the spirit of the judge's sentence...