Rip Andrew Harper - Thames Valley Police

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, hauxwell said:

 The petition is still going strong, I would like to see a retrial.  

I can fully understand that and imagine lots of people have the same opinion.   

 

But what concerns me with things like this is facts of law.  Exactly what grounds, demonstratable legal inaccuracies and evidence do all the people signing the position have to demand a retrial? 

 

I fully appreciate the highly emotional subject under discussion and the disgrace that a serving officer has been killed in such a brutal and despicable way - but this is a point of law which should go far beyond inevitable slacktivism, clicking a few buttons and adding names to a list. 

 

Petitions are usually set up for a matter to be debated in parliament if they have enough signatories.   However there is a very distinct gap between influence of parliament and judicial independence which for very good reasons needs to be adhered to.  

 

Whilst a public show of support is pleasing, in my opinion it should be a simply a matter for the widow and the victims to decide on any retrial not one to be forced upon or heavily encouraged by lots of speculation and uninformed opinion from wider members of the public.  

Edited July 31, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[apelike]

I agree with most of the above although I disagree that in this case the widow or victims should be able to decide on any retrial. If people want to petition parliament then they should do so for a change in the laws we presently have which parliament make and not on how they are interpreted when sentencing is or has been carried out.

[whiteowl]

16 years for one and 13 years for the other 2.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46544144

Edited July 31, 2020 by whiteowl

[hauxwell]

They have received a longer sentence than I expected for manslaughter, I thought the maximum you could receive was 10 years, but I was wrong.

 

I’m pleased the judge said: "Sometimes death may be caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes it is very close to a case of murder in its seriousness. That is so, here."  He said the defendants' denials they did not know they were dragging anything behind the car were "clearly false" and he rejected the idea they had shown remorse.

The Judge was spot on when he summed this case up.

[hauxwell]

3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I can fully understand that and imagine lots of people have the same opinion.   

 

But what concerns me with things like this is facts of law.  Exactly what grounds, demonstratable legal inaccuracies and evidence do all the people signing the position have to demand a retrial? 

 

I fully appreciate the highly emotional subject under discussion and the disgrace that a serving officer has been killed in such a brutal and despicable way - but this is a point of law which should go far beyond inevitable slacktivism, clicking a few buttons and adding names to a list. 

 

Petitions are usually set up for a matter to be debated in parliament if they have enough signatories.   However there is a very distinct gap between influence of parliament and judicial independence which for very good reasons needs to be adhered to.  

 

Whilst a public show of support is pleasing, in my opinion it should be a simply a matter for the widow and the victims to decide on any retrial not one to be forced upon or heavily encouraged by lots of speculation and uninformed opinion from wider members of the public.  

I am out of my depth when it comes to the Criminal Courts and being separate from Parliament .  I don’t  know everything that was discussed  in court either, but I just found it hard to believe that these thugs didn’t know that Andrew Harper was being dragged along the road.  

 

 

[RiffRaff]

I suspect that our three thugs won't be so smirky and glib for too long, once their new housemates get to grips with them...

[Halibut]

15 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I can fully understand that and imagine lots of people have the same opinion.   

 

But what concerns me with things like this is facts of law.  Exactly what grounds, demonstratable legal inaccuracies and evidence do all the people signing the position have to demand a retrial? 

 

I fully appreciate the highly emotional subject under discussion and the disgrace that a serving officer has been killed in such a brutal and despicable way - but this is a point of law which should go far beyond inevitable slacktivism, clicking a few buttons and adding names to a list. 

 

Petitions are usually set up for a matter to be debated in parliament if they have enough signatories.   However there is a very distinct gap between influence of parliament and judicial independence which for very good reasons needs to be adhered to.  

 

Whilst a public show of support is pleasing, in my opinion it should be a simply a matter for the widow and the victims to decide on any retrial not one to be forced upon or heavily encouraged by lots of speculation and uninformed opinion from wider members of the public.  

It absolutely shouldn't. It's for the courts to decide.

[iansheff]

18 hours ago, whiteowl said:

16 years for one and 13 years for the other 2.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46544144

Yes 2 of them out aged 31 if they serve the full sentence and the other out at 35, still young enough to find a partner and have a family. That is something that Andrew Harpers wife, thanks to these thugs will never have with him.

[ECCOnoob]

4 hours ago, Halibut said:

It absolutely shouldn't. It's for the courts to decide.

To clarify, I meant that it should be a matter for the widow and victims to decide on whether they wish to pursue and seek permission for retrial.  

 

The key point I was making is that any such decision should be entirely theirs  alone.   It should be completely without pressure or otherwise forced by lots of disconnected members of the public clicking some online campaign form or a load of opinionated talking heads spewing  over social media .  

[Halibut]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

To clarify, I meant that it should be a matter for the widow and victims to decide on whether they wish to pursue and seek permission for retrial.  

 

The key point I was making is that any such decision should be entirely theirs  alone.   It should be completely without pressure or otherwise forced by lots of disconnected members of the public clicking some online campaign form or a load of opinionated talking heads spewing  over social media .  

Indeed. However, unless there's new evidence or evidence that the jury was nobbled such an attempt should be rejected - the fact that it's the widow and her family asking should carry no weight at all.