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?

[hc4361]

There is a mandatory life sentence for murder so the judge has no choice. He then gives the minimum term the murderer must serve without hope of parole.
If the murderer is ever released he is 'on licence' so he can be recalled to prison at any time.

[Peter Pedant]

Good clearly you are taking the points made on board in your later posts:

// 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. //

no they are not allowed to do this. They were but they arent now
The law has changed
the change in law has led to reviews and then to HR being released

[ Now you could have said, TTT : in the good old days they would have hanged him....
and we could have said: yeah but the law has changed and we dont do this now....
and my comment is that we wouldnt have had SUCH a long thread on how once they did things and now they dont.....]

[hc4361]

The change is law is nothing whatsoever to do with this man being released.

[Peter Pedant]

hc - reference ?

[hc4361]

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/feb/18/whole-life-sentences-can-continue-appeal-court-rules

[jim360]

Actually I don't think a whole-life tariff was available to the judge as they were only introduced from the early 1980s and then it was initially up to the Home Secretary as to whether or not to apply it. The sentencing guidelines from the 1965 law that repealed (or suspended) the death penalty introduced mandatory life sentence with minimum term to be set by the judge, where the minimum term is usually 30 or 40 years and doesn't seem to have ever been more than that. So in fact the judge in this case had to set the sentence such that Roberts could have been released at some point, whether he wanted to or not.

So that means that my previous post was wrong.

[ToraToraTora]

"So in fact the judge in this case had to set the sentence such that Roberts could have been released at some point, whether he wanted to or not" - I don't see that jim, if he wanted to he could have set a mimimum term of much longer.

[jim360]

Well in that case again it makes my previous point as to why this "overrides the judge's decision" valid. You can't have it both ways. Either the judge was forced to leave the door open to parole, or he was happy to have parole considered at some point.

[Peter Pedant]

thanks HJ - good ref
and backs up my point that they had to shift from locking the door and throwing the key away to re-assessing according to criteria....

which is a change in law and a change in practice and as far as I can see accounts for this man's release.

[Peter Pedant]

jim - how is your math course going ?

I had identified your point in math logic
both A and not A cannot imply B
( unless everything goes, weak condition of inconsistency innit ? )

and I admire yes applaud your attempt to introduce it to ABers

and for myself felt I really shouldnt try..... well done all the same

[ yeah yeah I know I am gonna get a glood of wha......? wos-he on about now etc etc ad inf]