ChatterBank4 mins ago
Good To See The High Court Doing Its Job!
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Garaman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This site looks good
https:/
I always think the judges' easons themselves are better than a tree-hugger at the Beeb speaking off the cuff
in fact it has been set back for re-determination
also has
the ICO writ against paralytica
and a judge on the Skripal application for blood tests
https:/
I always think the judges' easons themselves are better than a tree-hugger at the Beeb speaking off the cuff
in fact it has been set back for re-determination
also has
the ICO writ against paralytica
and a judge on the Skripal application for blood tests
"Warboys was sentenced on crimes he had been proven to have committed, not crimes he may have committed."
Indeed, ken. He was convicted of one rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and 12 drugging charges. Ten years is a pathetically inadequate period in custody for such a litany of serious offences, regardless of how much he is now "rehabilitated" or "reformed" (and even this seems open to doubt as he apparently misled the Parole Board).
Indeed, ken. He was convicted of one rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and 12 drugging charges. Ten years is a pathetically inadequate period in custody for such a litany of serious offences, regardless of how much he is now "rehabilitated" or "reformed" (and even this seems open to doubt as he apparently misled the Parole Board).
//I just worry that the precedent set will be seized upon by many a clever barrister looking to get his/her client's parole decision changed. //
This case shouldn't affect the above. There's never been a right of appeal against a decision of the Parole Board, but there's always been a right to challenge by way of judicial review on public law grounds. There have been many such challenges brought by prisoners on the basis either that the procedure undertaken by the Parole Board has been unfair or that, for some other reason, a decision not to release is wrong. the uniqueness of this case is that it's the first to challenge a decision to release (rather than not to), and is the first challenge brought by a party not involved in the parole board case.
That is not really the precedent it sets, though. As far as I can see, the two precedents set are that:
(1) Evidence related to wider offences than those that were prosecuted and led to a conviction ought, be rights, to be taken into account where available, and
(2) Parole Board decisions can't be held as utterly secret, and that the current Rule (25) needs to change so that access is available where it's in the public interest.
This therefore won't, as a matter of course, lead to longer time spent behind bars, except where the wider evidence considered utterly destroys a case for early release, which might otherwise have been accepted. This will, I suggest, be a rarity.
Not that I am sad to see the decision, by any means; having read the judgement carefully it seems clear that there are undertones from the judges that they are amazed at the Parole Board's original decision, and I'm inclined to trust their reading of the evidence. At Paragraph 125 they state:
"With respect, it does not seem to us that this possibility [that Worboys was not open and honest about his recent admission of guilt] was thoroughly probed by the independent psychologists..."
Perhaps it's a product of watching too much Yes Minister, but it's hard to read that as anything other than a polite way of saying: "Seriously? You *believed* this tisspit?!"
Still, apart from that, on balance the judges are wary of trying to decide whether the decision to release Worboys is wrong on principle, rather than wrong as a matter of law. Hopefully, a fresh Parole Hearing will come to a different conclusion, for the time being at least, but there is no precedent set for longer sentences that I can see.
(1) Evidence related to wider offences than those that were prosecuted and led to a conviction ought, be rights, to be taken into account where available, and
(2) Parole Board decisions can't be held as utterly secret, and that the current Rule (25) needs to change so that access is available where it's in the public interest.
This therefore won't, as a matter of course, lead to longer time spent behind bars, except where the wider evidence considered utterly destroys a case for early release, which might otherwise have been accepted. This will, I suggest, be a rarity.
Not that I am sad to see the decision, by any means; having read the judgement carefully it seems clear that there are undertones from the judges that they are amazed at the Parole Board's original decision, and I'm inclined to trust their reading of the evidence. At Paragraph 125 they state:
"With respect, it does not seem to us that this possibility [that Worboys was not open and honest about his recent admission of guilt] was thoroughly probed by the independent psychologists..."
Perhaps it's a product of watching too much Yes Minister, but it's hard to read that as anything other than a polite way of saying: "Seriously? You *believed* this tisspit?!"
Still, apart from that, on balance the judges are wary of trying to decide whether the decision to release Worboys is wrong on principle, rather than wrong as a matter of law. Hopefully, a fresh Parole Hearing will come to a different conclusion, for the time being at least, but there is no precedent set for longer sentences that I can see.
I am grateful to the High court for returning the correct answer.I don’t see how any right thinking person can possibly conclude that this low life piece of excrement should be released. We now need to look at the Parole board and remove anyone removed in this decision. Preferably remove the whole thing. It’s only a liberal infested failed attempt at emulating the US anyway.
Law decided by likes on Facebook.
Over politicisation.
Since Blair took a leaf out of the EU's book and decided if you/they don't like the outcome of a trial, just keep taking them back until they get the 'right' outcome.
Sort of knew where you were with the law but now it's a movable feast.
Nothing concrete, just feel it's all getting rather Big Brotherish.
Over politicisation.
Since Blair took a leaf out of the EU's book and decided if you/they don't like the outcome of a trial, just keep taking them back until they get the 'right' outcome.
Sort of knew where you were with the law but now it's a movable feast.
Nothing concrete, just feel it's all getting rather Big Brotherish.
“Sort of knew where you were with the law but now it's a movable feast.”
That’s not quite true, spicey. Anybody has the right to ask for a judicial review of decisions made by public bodies. Such reviews are not set up to challenge the actual decision, but to examine whether it was made following the correct procedure. In the Warboys case a senior judge conducted a comprehensive examination of the Parole Board’s decision making process and concluded that it was (considerably) flawed. A half decent government minister would have requested the review himself but it was left to some of Warboys’s’ victims to do so. It wasn’t launched as a result of a Facebook campaign; it was launched by the victims who feared for their safety should Warboys be released. What is atrocious is that such a review has to be launched by victims and funded by crowdfunding.
The problem lies with indeterminate sentences (and to a lesser degree, some determinate sentences where the Parole Board has a role in granting release). The type o sentence to which Warboys was subject (an “Indeterminate Sentence for Protection of the Public”) was abolished in 2012. But the Parole Board’s main body of work is with those serving (so-called) “Life” sentences. This is where the law becomes the moveable feast which you describe. Couple this with the fact that those serving determinate sentences rarely complete more than half their sentence before being released and it is clear that the Criminal Justice system – certainly in this respect and probably many others - is in urgent need of overhaul.
That’s not quite true, spicey. Anybody has the right to ask for a judicial review of decisions made by public bodies. Such reviews are not set up to challenge the actual decision, but to examine whether it was made following the correct procedure. In the Warboys case a senior judge conducted a comprehensive examination of the Parole Board’s decision making process and concluded that it was (considerably) flawed. A half decent government minister would have requested the review himself but it was left to some of Warboys’s’ victims to do so. It wasn’t launched as a result of a Facebook campaign; it was launched by the victims who feared for their safety should Warboys be released. What is atrocious is that such a review has to be launched by victims and funded by crowdfunding.
The problem lies with indeterminate sentences (and to a lesser degree, some determinate sentences where the Parole Board has a role in granting release). The type o sentence to which Warboys was subject (an “Indeterminate Sentence for Protection of the Public”) was abolished in 2012. But the Parole Board’s main body of work is with those serving (so-called) “Life” sentences. This is where the law becomes the moveable feast which you describe. Couple this with the fact that those serving determinate sentences rarely complete more than half their sentence before being released and it is clear that the Criminal Justice system – certainly in this respect and probably many others - is in urgent need of overhaul.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
News19 mins ago
Body & Soul19 mins ago
Jobs & Education21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
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.