HUMAN RIGHTS?

[Montreal Wanderer]

What point of law??
the bloke got 20 life sentences running concurrently with a minimum of thirty years before his case can be reviewed and looked at.
That my friend is plain English coman sense and clear!

The point that he has a right to know the length of his sentence. The other part of his action is to get released by 2011. If we apply some English common sense we will discover that 2011 is actually thirty years after he was sentenced. So he is only asking for clarity. Still, I doubt he will get out when it is reveiwed.

Unfortunately doing the maths gets in the way of the pitchfork sharpening.

No the thirty years is not the case here it's what clarification is the bloke after? other than yet another atempt by some in the legal profession to get a clear cut defenition of how many years a life sentance is.

A clear cut definition is a reasonable expectation. In Canada for example life is 25 years before eligibility for parole. In the UK it is indeterminate.

In February 2007, the European Court of Human Rights announced a review on whole life sentences on the grounds that such sentences amount to a violation of human rights. The review has yet to be completed. The Court of Appeal (UK) is awaiting the outcome of this review before it rules on the legality of life-long imprisonment in David Bieber's appeal.

[Hoboh]

Right and I imagine that whatever you do, is done for free and in the public spirit?

We live in a capitalist society, anyone who has ever voted Tory or indeed Nu Labour has no right to complain about the fact that businesses and people are primarily interested in making money. Thats the world we live in and unless all of a sudden the socialist workers party or whatever they're called have a surge in voters, its unlikely that its gonna change.

I don't mind anyone making a crust but cases such as this, Hi-jackers forcing planes to land here commiting CRIMINAL offences then argueing their human rights are infringed when we want to deport them after sentence, make a mockery of the legal system and should not exist for lawyers to make a killing at the Tax payers expense!

But cases like this, allow precedents to be set, which are important in future cases that may be more "relevant" or "important" to the individuals concerned or the public as a whole.

That is one of the big problems with law!
How the hell can a starving peasant back in say 1768 who steals a cow for him and his family to eat have anything relevant to a toe rag hoodie ripping off your car?

Er, because law deals with principles not specifics? Both examples you state are theft, that's the crime in question. In that respect the two case are the same, the era is irrelevant when considering the question of guilt. Sentencing is another matter all together and that take in to account the circumstannces of the crime to assess a tariff - these are guidelines dictated to teh courts and have nothing to do with the fundamental law which has been broken and nothing to do with laws passed in 1453.

Ok so after a good few hundred years the Precedents should now be set in stone then?
So why do lawyers keep going back and trying to work out new variations on these then?
Therefore it would be fair to say would it not that a precendent or principle set in the case of the starving man could be superceeded by a clever lawyer defending the hoodie?
That is what I'm getting at when IMHO the law is a mess!

[Hoboh]

What point of law??
the bloke got 20 life sentences running concurrently with a minimum of thirty years before his case can be reviewed and looked at.
That my friend is plain English coman sense and clear!

The point that he has a right to know the length of his sentence. The other part of his action is to get released by 2011. If we apply some English common sense we will discover that 2011 is actually thirty years after he was sentenced. So he is only asking for clarity. Still, I doubt he will get out when it is reveiwed.

Unfortunately doing the maths gets in the way of the pitchfork sharpening.

No the thirty years is not the case here it's what clarification is the bloke after? other than yet another atempt by some in the legal profession to get a clear cut defenition of how many years a life sentance is.

A clear cut definition is a reasonable expectation. In Canada for example life is 25 years before eligibility for parole. In the UK it is indeterminate.

In February 2007, the European Court of Human Rights announced a review on whole life sentences on the grounds that such sentences amount to a violation of human rights. The review has yet to be completed. The Court of Appeal (UK) is awaiting the outcome of this review before it rules on the legality of life-long imprisonment in David Bieber's appeal.

That reads to me the same as saying you got life we will look at your case in 30yrs time!
Unless parole is guarrented which I doubt.

[Montreal Wanderer]

A clear cut definition is a reasonable expectation. In Canada for example life is 25 years before eligibility for parole. In the UK it is indeterminate.

In February 2007, the European Court of Human Rights announced a review on whole life sentences on the grounds that such sentences amount to a violation of human rights. The review has yet to be completed. The Court of Appeal (UK) is awaiting the outcome of this review before it rules on the legality of life-long imprisonment in David Bieber's appeal.

That reads to me the same as saying you got life we will look at your case in 30yrs time!
Unless parole is guarrented which I doubt.

No, it is not the same. In Canada the length is in the statute while in the UK the judge makes some unclear recommendation so the offender does not really know how long he is to be durance vile. And judges vary quite a bit. No, parole is not guaranteed and depends on many things - e.g., model behaviour and demonstrated remorse on the part of the criminal, and the possibility of re-offending (protecting society) on the other. In the UK you have statute-based common law which relies on precedent for purposes of interpretation - many other societies use civil law which is often based on codes (In Canada we actually have both and are a mixed jurisdiction like Scotland, South Africa and Louisiana). IMHO, by and large, you should be happy you are in a society that accepts the rule of law and allows the freedom to criticize.

[communistworkethic]

I don't mind anyone making a crust but cases such as this, Hi-jackers forcing planes to land here commiting CRIMINAL offences then argueing their human rights are infringed when we want to deport them after sentence, make a mockery of the legal system and should not exist for lawyers to make a killing at the Tax payers expense!

But cases like this, allow precedents to be set, which are important in future cases that may be more "relevant" or "important" to the individuals concerned or the public as a whole.

That is one of the big problems with law!
How the hell can a starving peasant back in say 1768 who steals a cow for him and his family to eat have anything relevant to a toe rag hoodie ripping off your car?

Er, because law deals with principles not specifics? Both examples you state are theft, that's the crime in question. In that respect the two case are the same, the era is irrelevant when considering the question of guilt. Sentencing is another matter all together and that take in to account the circumstannces of the crime to assess a tariff - these are guidelines dictated to teh courts and have nothing to do with the fundamental law which has been broken and nothing to do with laws passed in 1453.

Ok so after a good few hundred years the Precedents should now be set in stone then?
So why do lawyers keep going back and trying to work out new variations on these then?
Therefore it would be fair to say would it not that a precendent or principle set in the case of the starving man could be superceeded by a clever lawyer defending the hoodie?
That is what I'm getting at when IMHO the law is a mess!

No, there's different types of precedent.

And criminal law doesn't have precedents set in quite the way you seem to think. Guilt in the case of a criminal act is an absolute based on the specific evidence presented to the court and jury. The outcome of such a trial vis-a-vis "guilt" does not become a "precedent" in the way a question of common law on a contract does. As pencilbiter will no doubt clarify, a criminal defence lawyer can try to establish that within the law, it is alleged has been broken, his client has not acted thus in light of the evidence presented, there's no "this guy got off, so my client should too". Even in case law you have to be able to demonstrate that the 2 cases are suitably similar.

You could question a the legality of a law based on another law as per this case. But that's a seperate case than defending a charge.

Your idea is one that Lord Denning put forward whereby because times change judges should be able to adjust laws, which is basically trying to nick power from parliament.

this tel

[Hoboh]

A clear cut definition is a reasonable expectation. In Canada for example life is 25 years before eligibility for parole. In the UK it is indeterminate.

In February 2007, the European Court of Human Rights announced a review on whole life sentences on the grounds that such sentences amount to a violation of human rights. The review has yet to be completed. The Court of Appeal (UK) is awaiting the outcome of this review before it rules on the legality of life-long imprisonment in David Bieber's appeal.

That reads to me the same as saying you got life we will look at your case in 30yrs time!
Unless parole is guarrented which I doubt.

No, it is not the same. In Canada the length is in the statute while in the UK the judge makes some unclear recommendation so the offender does not really know how long he is to be durance vile. And judges vary quite a bit. No, parole is not guaranteed and depends on many things - e.g., model behaviour and demonstrated remorse on the part of the criminal, and the possibility of re-offending (protecting society) on the other. In the UK you have statute-based common law which relies on precedent for purposes of interpretation - many other societies use civil law which is often based on codes (In Canada we actually have both and are a mixed jurisdiction like Scotland, South Africa and Louisiana). IMHO, by and large, you should be happy you are in a society that accepts the rule of law and allows the freedom to criticize.

I am and I'm not
You see I get a vote to use/not use, cast/spoil whatever takes my fancy. Now with that vote I choose a goverment to make laws and defend and run my country, sometimes it is led by people I voted for sometimes not but thats democracy.
What I find hard to except is judicial reviews or legal interference in the running of my country by non elected unremoveable people with no mandate.
They are usually asked by very small minoritys or individuals to overturn decisions made by people who are answerable to the whole comunity and who can be removed with my vote. The human rights act and the European courts of justice are removing not only my faith in an accountable legal system but that of many ohters also.
If I was a lawyer I doubt I would lose much sleep over that and would be ringing my hands in glee at the thought of more than enough well paid work that will keep heading my way, a bit like undertakers theres no sign of a slowdown in the legal trade.

[Hoboh]

No, there's different types of precedent.

And criminal law doesn't have precedents set in quite the way you seem to think. Guilt in the case of a criminal act is an absolute based on the specific evidence presented to the court and jury. The outcome of such a trial vis-a-vis "guilt" does not become a "precedent" in the way a question of common law on a contract does. As pencilbiter will no doubt clarify, a criminal defence lawyer can try to establish that within the law, it is alleged has been broken, his client has not acted thus in light of the evidence presented, there's no "this guy got off, so my client should too". Even in case law you have to be able to demonstrate that the 2 cases are suitably similar.

You could question a the legality of a law based on another law as per this case. But that's a seperate case than defending a charge.

Your idea is one that Lord Denning put forward whereby because times change judges should be able to adjust laws, which is basically trying to nick power from parliament.
this tel

I think Parliament maybe overlooking updateing the law because they would proberbly have to suffer a judicial review of their decision

[davroduk]

I think that the Solicitors etc , are becoming very rich by bringing all these questions before the law.

I dont think, I know , that we (as the tax payer) pay these solicitors fees.

We are being Shafted by these do gooding, money chasing w@nkers that dont give a toss about anybodys "Human Rights" as long as they make a Fast Buck.

As for Sutcliffe................

HANG THE FECKING BASTARD AND SAVE US ALL A FORTUNE

[Montreal Wanderer]

I think that the Solicitors etc , are becoming very rich by bringing all these questions before the law.

I dont think, I know , that we (as the tax payer) pay these solicitors fees.

We are being Shafted by these do gooding, money chasing w@nkers that dont give a toss about anybodys "Human Rights" as long as they make a Fast Buck.

As for Sutcliffe................

HANG THE FECKING BASTARD AND SAVE US ALL A FORTUNE

Good thing we can read your sig as well as the rant.