News0 min ago
They did murder Stephen Lawrence...
23 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. 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.
the possibility that police knew more than had been reported was actually one of the damaging allegations against them: withholding evidence
http://en.wikipedia.o...ged_police_corruption
http://en.wikipedia.o...ged_police_corruption
As they were both aged under 18 when the offence was committed I believe they will be “detained during Her Majesty's pleasure” under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 section 90. As with normal life sentences imposed on those convicted of offences committed as an adult I believe the judge has to impose a “tariff”. The minimum tariff for offences sentenced under this legislation is 12 years. However this particular offence is racially aggravated and this will certainly increase the tariff considerably. I would be very surprised if they receive a tariff of less than 20 years. But I too strongly suspect they will appeal against their conviction.
I have little doubt that this despicable pair did indeed commit the murder of which they have been convicted. But I have grave misgivings over the way legislation was modified to give the CPS a second crack at securing their conviction. The CPS declined to prosecute them when they were first identified as the potential murderers. The Lawrence family, against wiser counsel, insisted on pursuing a private prosecution three years after their son’s death. The case against Norris and one other collapsed before reaching court. Dobson (and two others) was acquitted.
Normally under the “double jeopardy” rule that would have been the end of the matter. (Although, technically, Norris could stand trial as he had not been formally tried and committed, precedent in such circumstances suggests he probably would not have). But then enters, Stage Left, Sir William Macpherson. His report into the police handling of the murder contained seventy recommendations. Some of them set back policing and race relations in the UK by 20 years. But most pertinently as far as today’s news is concerned, it recommended “...Consideration of a change in the "double jeopardy" law to enable the appeal court to allow a new prosecution after acquittal ‘where fresh and viable evidence is presented’". This was clearly beyond his remit as it had nothing to do with the police’s handling of the investigation. But it was warmly embraced by the government and in 2003 the current law allowing re-trials was introduced. And so the pair found themselves hauled up again on a matter of which they had already been properly acquitted. Personally I have suspicions that had they been acquitted today, some more “fresh and viable” evidence may have been unearthed in a few months time, thus enabling the CPS to stand them up for a third time.
Although it has been strenuously denied, I have no doubt that this legislation was introduced principally to facilitate a subsequent prosecution of these particular murder suspects that had already been cleared. It would not have been considered had the Lawrence family followed advice and held off with their private prosecution.
I have little doubt that this despicable pair did indeed commit the murder of which they have been convicted. But I have grave misgivings over the way legislation was modified to give the CPS a second crack at securing their conviction. The CPS declined to prosecute them when they were first identified as the potential murderers. The Lawrence family, against wiser counsel, insisted on pursuing a private prosecution three years after their son’s death. The case against Norris and one other collapsed before reaching court. Dobson (and two others) was acquitted.
Normally under the “double jeopardy” rule that would have been the end of the matter. (Although, technically, Norris could stand trial as he had not been formally tried and committed, precedent in such circumstances suggests he probably would not have). But then enters, Stage Left, Sir William Macpherson. His report into the police handling of the murder contained seventy recommendations. Some of them set back policing and race relations in the UK by 20 years. But most pertinently as far as today’s news is concerned, it recommended “...Consideration of a change in the "double jeopardy" law to enable the appeal court to allow a new prosecution after acquittal ‘where fresh and viable evidence is presented’". This was clearly beyond his remit as it had nothing to do with the police’s handling of the investigation. But it was warmly embraced by the government and in 2003 the current law allowing re-trials was introduced. And so the pair found themselves hauled up again on a matter of which they had already been properly acquitted. Personally I have suspicions that had they been acquitted today, some more “fresh and viable” evidence may have been unearthed in a few months time, thus enabling the CPS to stand them up for a third time.
Although it has been strenuously denied, I have no doubt that this legislation was introduced principally to facilitate a subsequent prosecution of these particular murder suspects that had already been cleared. It would not have been considered had the Lawrence family followed advice and held off with their private prosecution.
Latest Posts
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 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.