Parents of Stephen Lawrence's killers could face investigation.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....ce-investigation.html

What next, will there never be closure on this case?

These two have been found guilty of murder in a court of law, even though their parents stated under oath that they were both at home at the time of the murder, so under these circumstances their parents have technically broken the law by committing perjury and are libel to be convicted of such.

The questions that must now be asked are "what parents wouldn't be prepared to lie in defence of their off springs"?

And if these parents are subsequently convicted of perjury and issued with a fine or given a custodial sentence, and then in the unlikely event of these two convicted killers being found not guilty of killing Stephen Lawrence, what would happen to their parents?

Would they also be immediately released, or would they also have to appeal against their convictions also?

[sp1814]

AOG

"what parents wouldn't be prepared to lie in defence of their offsprings"?

Responsible parents would have brought up their children to "tell the truth and shame the devil".

One of the few positives to come out of the riots was that a number of those convicted were shopped by their own parents. That's the kind of attitude parents should have - "I love you, but if you break the law, you have to face the consequences".

Re: your second question - it would depend on how the convictions were quashed...if it were on a technicality (say a piece of flawed forensics), it wouldn't necessarily mean that the parents weren't lying. What I mean is - as long as it can be proved that the killers were out, then that would prove the parents' lies and their conviction would stand.

...I think.

We need New Judge on this one.

[sandyRoe]

"...have technically broken the law..." They were attempting to pervert the course of justice. If their lies had been believed, savage murderers would have gone unpunished.

[Gromit]

If they have lied, they have lied. There is no 'technically' about it. There is no defence in law which says 'I know I led, but it is my duty as a parent to try and pervert the course of justice.

I would imagine if it does get that far, then the sentence if it is jail will be short. Any Appeal by the men convicted would be heard long after the their sentences were spent.

(Not being deliberately pedantic, but) you of course meant 'liable' not 'libel' which is an entirely different kind of lying.

[FredPuli43]

It's unlikely that this will result in any charges for perjury. It would need to be an exceptionally strong case, to show that the witnesses undoubtedly knew that the account they gave was false. Anyone who has practised in the higher courts knows that family members, particularly mothers, are susceptible to the leading question from the suspect such as this " But I was home on that night,as usual, wasn't I Mum ?" The relative is persuaded and genuinely believes that that is so. That's what they want to believe.In fact they don't know precisely, one way or the other. And ommonly the alibi account is true for one date, but not the right date, because the witness has had suggested to them, or believes anyway, that the night of the crime was e.g "the night we went to the pictures" and so the suspect could not have done it.

[brenda]

There must be thousands of decent parents who would choose not to lie to protect their offspring , especially in the case of murder involving another parents child.

[FredPuli43]

"And ommonly "?[above] Not a new legal term, but a typo for 'commonly'.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

I stand corrected, but please don't issue corrections with your record, many which I have spotted, but would not dream of correcting you.

At least my 'spell checker' does get a correct spelling of a word, even though it might not be the correct meaning.

[sp1814]

Just realised that I must've read that line phonetically, as it made sense to me as 'libel'.

...or perhaps after years of relying on 'spellchecker', I just can't read properly any more.

[Gromit]

AOG

I would not normally correct anyone else (as I know I am the king of the typo) which is why I warned my correction was not as a pedant, but because you had mistakenly introduced a legal term for lying in a sentence about perjury. I was trying to be helpful, not taking the pi$$. I hope that was clear to everyone else.

[FredPuli43]

As an aside, alibis from friends and relations can be very dangerous. I witnessed this instance : An arson was on February the 14th. Girfriend of the defendant called " He was with me all night on February the 14th" Prosecuting counsel " Where was he on Saint Valentine's night ? " " Don't know. I never saw him . I was very annoyed about that!"
And a mother was asked "Think back to when your son was arrested for a stabbing, where had he been? " and answered , sweetly " Which stabbing was that?" Ah well, there were so many !