boyfriday Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Having been told recently that he will spend the rest of his life in prison, Peter Sutcliffe is challenging the decision Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe has started a bid to challenge a High Court order that he can never be released from prison. Last month a judge refused an application made by the 64-year-old to have a minimum term set to give him the chance of parole. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10867677 He's obviously not too enamoured of prison life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Having been told recently that he will spend the rest of his life in prison, Peter Sutcliffe is challenging the decision http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10867677 He's obviously not too enamoured of prison life. Is that his picture to the left of your thread? It certainly looks like him! Was it the moment when he was told that life meant life? It certainly made his hair stand on end!:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 The story is a little confusing. He was, I believe, given a tariff - which was whole-life. The latter sentence suggests that the judge refused to set a tariff at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Is that his picture to the left of your thread? It certainly looks like him! Was it the moment when he was told that life meant life? It certainly made his hair stand on end!:hihi: :hihi: ...and after a good holiday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Having been told recently that he will spend the rest of his life in prison, Peter Sutcliffe is challenging the decision http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10867677 He's obviously not too enamoured of prison life. He got something like 15 life sentences didn't he? What does he expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 The story is a little confusing. He was, I believe, given a tariff - which was whole-life. The latter sentence suggests that the judge refused to set a tariff at all. I cant remember the full story, but I think he was one of those indeterminate lifers who had never had a minimum sentence set. The previous hearing I think formally endorsed what I suspect he and the rest of us already knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 He got something like 15 life sentences didn't he? What does he expect? I think he's becoming bored with the food and 5000 piece jigsaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I think he's becoming bored with the food and 5000 piece jigsaws. Yeah,they keep raising his hopes by giving him ones with "From 2 to 4 years" printed on the box... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I cant remember the full story, but I think he was one of those indeterminate lifers who had never had a minimum sentence set. The previous hearing I think formally endorsed what I suspect he and the rest of us already knew. You're correct, he never had a tariff set; his original court bid was an attempt to get one. This story reads as if the judge refused to set one, whereas, as I understand it, he did set one and it was "whole life." Sutcliffe is now appealing to get the whole-life tariff reduced, rather than appealing against a refusal to have a tariff set. Either way, he will never get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 This story reads as if the judge refused to set one, whereas, as I understand it, he did set one and it was "whole life." Sutcliffe is now appealing to get the whole-life tariff reduced, rather than appealing against a refusal to have a tariff set. Ah, I see your point, yes that is what it looks like, hopefully the judge will accede to his request, and knock a couple of years off 'whole life' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.