Sentencing Guidelines

[John Wright]

It may have been one, two, three or four stones which connected, if so who threw them, at least one is innocent, which one. You cannot safely convict anyof them. On top of that is there any medical evidence that the heart attack was caused by being hit. many people are assaulted or hit and don't have heart attacks, how can anyone be certain, medically that a stone, rather than the game of cricket caused the attack. BAN CRICKET would be just as resaonable, but illogical, assumption

 

I thnk they were probably wrongly charged, there are plenty of other charges. The police and CPS have become emotionally unfocused when charging

 

I'm not suggesting people should get away with things, I am suggesting that if you endorse a sytem where an innocent person is convicted to allow conviction of a guilty person as well (in a joint situation where you cannot tell who actually caused the injury or death) that is a step which is fundamentally wrong

 

Its better that six guilty go free than one guilty be convicted, at the end of the day, if you want confidence in the law.

 

For Judges and Courts to bow to public and political pressure, start of very slippery slope

[VinnieK]

It may have been one, two, three or four stones which connected, if so who threw them, at least one is innocent, which one. You cannot safely convict anyof them.

 

Provided you labour under the mistaken assumption (which indeed is contrary to all medical evidence regarding the connection between stress and heart attacks) that the stones actually needed to hit in order to cause a heart attack, rather than its cause being the stress of the entire incident. To believe this is not only illogical, but flies in the face of established fact.

 

On top of that is there any medical evidence that the heart attack was caused by being hit. many people are assaulted or hit and don't have heart attacks, how can anyone be certain, medically that a stone, rather than the game of cricket caused the attack. BAN CRICKET would be just as resaonable, but illogical, assumption

 

Firstly, if we accept that stress is one of the major contributary factors in heart attacks, then it's entirely possible that a "game of cricket" contributed to his death, but then it's impossible to deny that so too did the assault (and, given the relative strains of playing a game of cricket with a child and being assaulted by a gang, most likely contributed more). Secondly, engaging in the game was the victim's own decision and "Cricket" took, if any, a passive role in his demise. The children, however, took an active role in deciding to pelt the man with stones and force a stressful, frightening, and physically damaging situation on him. Your counter argument is dangerously close to being sophistry.

[When Skies Are Grey]

Its better that six guilty go free than one guilty be convicted, at the end of the day, if you want confidence in the law.

 

Now THAT'S a slippery slope.

[Pragmatopian]

I agree with John's point that the Courts should not make decisions based on the emotional reaction to an alleged crime. However, I would like to see the reasons for overturning the conviction - if based on the submissions of defence counsel as cited then I fear the decision may be wrong at law; if they escaped on a procedural point, then I will be sickened.

 

Assuming there is solid evidence identifying that all of these youngsters took part in the incident, the stress of which led beyond reasonable doubt to the man's heart attack and resulting death, I find it difficult to see why all should not be held culpable. It is wrong to view the incident as a series of independent stone-throwing events, with each stone striking the victim being capable of acting as the tipping point which caused the heart attack. In this case it is unlikely to have been a physical blow which lead to the death: rather, it is the fear and stress generated by the combined activities of the group.

[Mutley]

It may have been one, two, three or four stones which connected, if so who threw them, at least one is innocent, which one. You cannot safely convict anyof them. On top of that is there any medical evidence that the heart attack was caused by being hit. many people are assaulted or hit and don't have heart attacks, how can anyone be certain, medically that a stone, rather than the game of cricket caused the attack. BAN CRICKET would be just as resaonable, but illogical, assumption

 

This is why the law is an ass sometimes. Does it matter who threw what stone and what stone actually connected? There was a group of them all involved. Is there any medical evidence to say that his heart attack wasn't caused by the whole episode of a verbal and physical assault? If they had walked on by and not started any aggro then nothing would have happened and this man would probably still be alive. As it is they were all involved and in my book anyway guilty by association no matter who did what.

 

However I do agree that they were wrongly charged - but surely they would have had legal advice here?

[Politician]

No the law really is truly remarkable. In the face of criticism, it manages, time after time to uphold the principle of innocent until proved beyond reasonable doubt guilty.

 

Think if you were one of the 5 boys, no one can tell if your stone hit the decesed causing the heart attack or not. How can any of them be guilty of manslaughter....beyond reasonable doubt.

 

That's all very well John, but clearly whichever of the lads was responsible was being egged on by the others. In other word, was this not a clear case of common purpose as established by R v Appleby (1940)?

[John Wright]

I think, that as usual, a lot of the point is being missed here.

 

These 5 boys have now been found not guilty of manslaughter, it is not that their sentences have been reduced.

 

No resaosn have been given for the finding, the Court of appeal has said it will give resaons later.

 

It found the original convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory.

 

Until we see the resaons it is hard to speculate. save to say Apoleby is much distinguished. Nowadays a court must look at the intention of the accused as well as what the actions caused.

 

seems there is no proof (evidence not gut feelings of the mob) that any stone caused the heart attack

 

maybe not enough attention was placed on their intyention, they did not intend to kill, no doubt, so it is not a Bulger situation. They were reckless maybe, but how reckless can 10 and 12 year olds be and how do we judge it, their standards or adult standards with 40 years of experience and foresight

[VinnieK]

seems there is no proof (evidence not gut feelings of the mob) that any stone caused the heart attack

 

This belief that a stone caused the heart attack is bizarre, and indeed, far from being "the mob" and their feelings, it only seems to be the judge in question and yourself who are indulging in it.