Connor Brown

Status
Not open for further replies.
can someone explain, does the judge personally decide on the severity of the sentence? or is their a process that all the evidence is put through which produces a sentence at the end? just seems mad the length of time they serve is practically plucked out the air by a judge
 


tunstallhill said:
can someone explain, does the judge personally decide on the severity of the sentence? or is their a process that all the evidence is put through which produces a sentence at the end? just seems mad the length of time they serve is practically plucked out the air by a judge
Click to expand...
Believe the judge decides as there's been appeals against judges & lenient sentences in the past, would like to see it here
 
SAFC Wilks said:
Don't agree with the sentence at all, but I'm guessing it's because he's possibly expressed a lot more remorse than Barrass did? Either that or he's dim or the judge agreed with the defence that he only kicked out when Connor got on top of Barrass.

Regardless of the circumstances, 3 and a half years for Gordon is far too lenient.
Click to expand...

If he was that remorseful he would have pleaded guilty and testified in court. That’s an absolute joke of a sentence. Imagine knowing the lad who was kicking your boy, while he was being stabbed on the floor would be carrying on with life as normal in a couple of year? I would find it very hard not to dish out my own justice for that.
 
SAFC Wilks said:
Don't agree with the sentence at all, but I'm guessing it's because he's possibly expressed a lot more remorse than Barrass did? Either that or he's dim or the judge agreed with the defence that he only kicked out when Connor got on top of Barrass.

Regardless of the circumstances, 3 and a half years for Gordon is far too lenient.
Click to expand...
From what I can gather the judge can't be sure Gordon new that Barrass had a knife.
tunstallhill said:
can someone explain, does the judge personally decide on the severity of the sentence? or is their a process that all the evidence is put through which produces a sentence at the end? just seems mad the length of time they serve is practically plucked out the air by a judge
Click to expand...
Yes but there's guidlelines they have to stick to. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Murder-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf

Sentencing - Mandatory life sentences in Murder cases | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
Notorious N O B said:
I thought there was a joint enterprise law. Remember the murder in pennywell, didn't a few of them get life that way?
Click to expand...

All a bit up in the air atm... from elsewhere on the interweb today.

Crilly was convicted under the joint enterprise law - which can apply to all crimes, but has recently been used to convict defendants in gang-related cases even if they did not strike the fatal blow, but could have foreseen that their associates might inflict serious harm or kill.

It was known as the "foresight" test and some believed it set the prosecutorial bar too low, allowing bit-part players or those on the periphery to be convicted of murder and given life sentences.

However, in February 2016, the Supreme Court ruled the law had been interpreted wrongly for more than 30 years.

The foresight test went and a higher test was introduced.

To be guilty of murder, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant intended to assist or encourage the crime.

However, most of those who wanted to appeal against their convictions were out of time, and the Supreme Court said they had to show they would suffer a "substantial injustice" if they were not allowed to appeal out of time.
 
Paddy O'Dors said:
All a bit up in the air atm... from elsewhere on the interweb today.

Crilly was convicted under the joint enterprise law - which can apply to all crimes, but has recently been used to convict defendants in gang-related cases even if they did not strike the fatal blow, but could have foreseen that their associates might inflict serious harm or kill.

It was known as the "foresight" test and some believed it set the prosecutorial bar too low, allowing bit-part players or those on the periphery to be convicted of murder and given life sentences.

However, in February 2016, the Supreme Court ruled the law had been interpreted wrongly for more than 30 years.

The foresight test went and a higher test was introduced.

To be guilty of murder, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant intended to assist or encourage the crime.

However, most of those who wanted to appeal against their convictions were out of time, and the Supreme Court said they had to show they would suffer a "substantial injustice" if they were not allowed to appeal out of time.
Click to expand...
It's disgraceful that this has not been made retrospective. Money before justice.
 
SAFC Wilks said:
Don't agree with the sentence at all, but I'm guessing it's because he's possibly expressed a lot more remorse than Barrass did? Either that or he's dim or the judge agreed with the defence that he only kicked out when Connor got on top of Barrass.

Regardless of the circumstances, 3 and a half years for Gordon is far too lenient.
Click to expand...

The cowward gave no evidence and expressed no remorse
 
Paddy O'Dors said:
All a bit up in the air atm... from elsewhere on the interweb today.

Crilly was convicted under the joint enterprise law - which can apply to all crimes, but has recently been used to convict defendants in gang-related cases even if they did not strike the fatal blow, but could have foreseen that their associates might inflict serious harm or kill.

It was known as the "foresight" test and some believed it set the prosecutorial bar too low, allowing bit-part players or those on the periphery to be convicted of murder and given life sentences.

However, in February 2016, the Supreme Court ruled the law had been interpreted wrongly for more than 30 years.

The foresight test went and a higher test was introduced.

To be guilty of murder, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant intended to assist or encourage the crime.

However, most of those who wanted to appeal against their convictions were out of time, and the Supreme Court said they had to show they would suffer a "substantial injustice" if they were not allowed to appeal out of time.
Click to expand...

That’s the lad that used the fire extinguisher to confront the London Bridge terrorist recently.
 
taff said:
Not defending Johnson for a second, but if he got six years for what he did, how can the offence of being involved in knowingly killing someone be only just over half as bad?
Click to expand...
Maybe that Johnson was an older adult and committed his crimes over a sustained period? Dunno.
 
Question should be asked if it wasnt for second offenders actions would victim have lived?

very possibly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top