This just

[SueEllen]

A defence against what?

Hacking someone to death with a machete in braad daylight and getting a long prison sentence.

Everyone is entitled to have a fair trial in this country and that involves having a defence.

In cases like this the defences job is to see if there are any mitigating circumstances that explain their actions i.e. learning disabilities making them easily lead, mental health problems. These particular individuals had no such issues but unless they had their defence team we wouldn't have found this out and wouldn't be safely able to lock them up in the correct institution.

Lots of people who are caught on CCTV or have lots of witnesses who can identify them, regardless of whether the crime is burglary or murder refuse to acknowledge their guilt in a trial.

I do not understand how they can appeal against anything as long as the initially judgement was a legal one.

Can they appeal against the charge of murder? No

Can they appeal against a perfectly acceptable sentence for the crime the committed? apparently yes.

For me it is not the money it is the fact that clearly guilty people feel they should have any say in their sentencing.

Anyone who is convicted of a serious crime can do this. You and I can also complain at the time of sentencing if we think a sentence is too lenient - see here

[MicrosoftBob]

For me it is not the money it is the fact that clearly guilty people feel they should have any say in their sentencing.

Perhaps they should be stoned to death or hung, that way we are being sensitive to their cultural customs and being very PC

[SueEllen]

Perhaps they should be stoned to death or hung, that way we are being sensitive to their cultural customs and being very PC

Yeah we really want to make them martyrs.

Beside that they are British which they conveniently forgot themselves when they massacred another British person.

[original PM]

Everyone is entitled to have a fair trial in this country and that involves having a defence.

In cases like this the defences job is to see if there are any mitigating circumstances that explain their actions i.e. learning disabilities making them easily lead, mental health problems. These particular individuals had no such issues but unless they had their defence team we wouldn't have found this out and wouldn't be safely able to lock them up in the correct institution.

Lots of people who are caught on CCTV or have lots of witnesses who can identify them, regardless of whether the crime is burglary or murder refuse to acknowledge their guilt in a trial.



Anyone who is convicted of a serious crime can do this. You and I can also complain at the time of sentencing if we think a sentence is too lenient - see here

I am not saying they should not have got a fair trial with representation - which they did.

What I am saying is that their grounds for appeal is so non existent that it should take maybe 30 minutes and £100 quid to say no, not £200k.

[MicrosoftBob]

Yeah we really want to make them martyrs.

Beside that they are British which they conveniently forgot themselves when they massacred another British person.

If you think they can be British and Muslim, do you believe Sharia Law is British ?

[SueEllen]

I am not saying they should not have got a fair trial with representation - which they did.

What I am saying is that their grounds for appeal is so non existent that it should take maybe 30 minutes and £100 quid to say no, not £200k.

The 200k is the amount it's cost us, the taxpayer, so far for their defence. The cost will go up once the other guy is told "No".

And then every 10 years or so one or both of them will bring some stupid case to court or appeal their sentences like Ian Brady, have to have legal representation and be told "No".

[original PM]

If you think they can be British and Muslim, do you believe Sharia Law is British ?

You can be british and muslim, you cannot murder people in cold blood, in broad daylight and expect to have leniency surely ref?

[original PM]

The 200k is the amount it's cost us, the taxpayer, so far for their defence. The cost will go up once the other guy is told "No".

And then every 10 years or so one or both of them will bring some stupid case to court or appeal their sentences like Ian Brady, have to have legal representation and be told "No".

ahh makes a bit more sense,,,

but surely it will only go up by a couple of quid? how much will it cost for a lawyer on a high profile gravy train case like this to say 'No'...

oh think I have answered my own question there.

[SueEllen]

If you think they can be British and Muslim, do you believe Sharia Law is British ?

Yes you can be British and Muslim. Like you can be British and Jewish, British and Sikh, British and Buddhist etc

Jewish people can use Jewish courts in the UK in disputes with other Jews if they want to and the decision is binding, so some Muslims want the same privilege.

Or are we going to see a rant about Jews now?

BTW these two were converts, and converts seem to me to be the most stupid and dangerous followers of any religion regardless of what religion it is.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Ok true - so they should go to the Prison Warden and ask for an appeal against their sentence...

Based on what?

Unlawful inprisonment - well nope they are guilty as sin
Unlawful/harsh sentencing - well nope they terms of the sentence are within UK justice rules

So based on what?

Judgements judge guilt according to the law, and sentencing given the context and circumstances.
Guilt is fairly black & white, while appropriate sentencing is more subjective.

If one can appeal their guilty verdict (an of course such a right to appeal exists for a good reason), then it makes even more sense for them to be able to appeal their sentencing.

And such a right must exist - or not. We can't be granting such rights according to whim for the very reasons that those rights exist in the first place.