Thank you for taking this seriously and going into depth.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it turns out that - and the police knew that- this crime was committed by someone using terrorist tactics with a terrorist type weapon (think novochek) and that members of the public who protested the lack of information and the denial of the truth, those protesters should immediately be absolved of any wrong doing.
I am not a lawyer, but I think I understand you correctly. It certainly sounds like this could be technically a correct decision.
However, I cannot prove this, but just from the mood in the country at the time my feeling is that this decision was not a cold calculated decision based on the risks of losing a criminal conviction. It was simply a kneejerk reaction to not answering to Nigel Farages' questions or those similar to him.
Although, I'm sure they could justify it - it looks like they were just being obstinate not to pander to the right. Possibly correct but once the atmosphere in the country became so febrile they should have taken the risk, as from what you say ultimately it was a very small risk.
On a somewhat comparative tangent Joshua, in the context of the Manchester Arena bomber’s brother (who was convicted of multiple murders), Jeremy Baker J specifically made the point that had Hashem Abedi been over 21 at the time of the offences, he would have almost certainly received a whole life order, but as it was, Abedi was under 21 and therefore Jeremy Baker J was constrained to imposing a very lengthy minimum term (of 50 years as it happened). I appreciate that things might have changed since the Abedi case with the Sentencing Act and subsequent amendments
Joshua, a good analysis. I am with Starmer on this. Even the possibility of a retrial and the continued distress inflicted on the families concerned are reasons for caution.
What about when the right to an unbiased trial is actually abused by the state?
What about when HMCTS produce and publish a newsletter that is distributed to judges, magistrates and court legal advisors that names defendants, defames them and gives those that should be impartial, cut and paste legal arguments against those defendants?
What then?
Well they double down on the abuse or pretend it didn’t happen and try and ignore it and try and cover it up by having FOI’s taken down from public view that expose this back door method of tilting the justice system in favour of the state.
For every murderous Axel there are 10,000 defendants whose cases have been interfered with by this shameful HMCTS back-channel which means that it is a more pernicious and wide ranging erosion of justice.
So, if any defamation/contempt specialists would like to make a difference to the administration of public justice to the masses then please feel free to contact this poster…
Measured and wise words, Joshua, if I may say so. I have been presenting to my Labour Party Branch Committee (political cards on the table, and why not?) about the need for reducing the reflex action of more and more prison time for the non dangerous and nonviolent vast majority and the need for options [ They are with me, by the way]. It gives me no satisfaction to add that I had identified the Bulger case as a factor frustrating prison reform in 1993 and sort of predicted a similar atrocity that would tend to halt adult approaches to crime and sentencing - and then along comes the Southport multiple killings! We must -all of us who care- urge this administration to stand firm in its commendable resolve to continue with a constructive review to tackle our unhealthy and non adult obsession with prison as though generally speaking that presents any sort of “answer”.
As ever, a very good piece. I see other commentators are pointing out that the collapsing trial was only a possibility. Given the trauma that would be caused to the parents in needing to testify, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to be cautious and try to ensure the risk of a retrial (thus requiring testimony again) was minimal. While the evidence of homicide was overwhelming, as you know, that doesn't stop a trial. Had he continued to refuse to give pleas, the court would have had no option but to continue to enter not-guilty pleas and thus a trial would have been held.
You note the possibility of a whole-life order. My understanding is that this is not possible for someone under the age of 21. Indeed, the starting points are much lower where a person is under the age of 18 at the time of the attack (which I think was the case here). That does raise the question about whether the media will properly report any tariff given that it was Parliament, not the judiciary, who set the framework. Of course, if the judge decides that a hospital order is required, then we could get the furore that accompanied Valdo Calocane receiving the same sentence.
I confidently predict lots of bandwagons approaching with columnists and politicians of all parties looking to see how they can climb aboard...
Thank you. I should have paid more attention to sentencing.
As you say, Rudakubana was under 18 at the time he committed murder. So the sentence will be detention during His Majesty’s pleasure (s259 Sentencing Act 2020).
That sentence is included in the definition of "life sentence" (s324). So the court must make an order under s321.
That order must be a minimum term unless the court is required to make a whole life order. But the court is not required to make a whole life order in the case of a person under 21 when the offence was committed.
Schedule 21 deals with minimum terms. Paragraph 2 would have applied if he had been 21 or over at the time of the offence.
Paragraph 3 would have applied if he had been 18 or over. In that case, the starting point would have been 30 years.
By paragraph 5A, the equivalent starting point for a person who was 17 is 27 years.
There are, of course, aggravating factors and some mitigating factors.
Like you, I found it incredibly complicated, but these thoughts echo my own. What has never been tested is the point you raise above, which is whether "not required to make a whole life order" means that they can still make a whole life order or whether they can't. The wording of 'not required' suggests there is discretion to impose such an order, but the implication of the rest of Schedule 21 is they can't.
Thank you for taking this seriously and going into depth.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it turns out that - and the police knew that- this crime was committed by someone using terrorist tactics with a terrorist type weapon (think novochek) and that members of the public who protested the lack of information and the denial of the truth, those protesters should immediately be absolved of any wrong doing.
I am not a lawyer, but I think I understand you correctly. It certainly sounds like this could be technically a correct decision.
However, I cannot prove this, but just from the mood in the country at the time my feeling is that this decision was not a cold calculated decision based on the risks of losing a criminal conviction. It was simply a kneejerk reaction to not answering to Nigel Farages' questions or those similar to him.
Although, I'm sure they could justify it - it looks like they were just being obstinate not to pander to the right. Possibly correct but once the atmosphere in the country became so febrile they should have taken the risk, as from what you say ultimately it was a very small risk.
Thanks. You may be right.
On a somewhat comparative tangent Joshua, in the context of the Manchester Arena bomber’s brother (who was convicted of multiple murders), Jeremy Baker J specifically made the point that had Hashem Abedi been over 21 at the time of the offences, he would have almost certainly received a whole life order, but as it was, Abedi was under 21 and therefore Jeremy Baker J was constrained to imposing a very lengthy minimum term (of 50 years as it happened). I appreciate that things might have changed since the Abedi case with the Sentencing Act and subsequent amendments
That's very helpful; thank you.
Joshua, a good analysis. I am with Starmer on this. Even the possibility of a retrial and the continued distress inflicted on the families concerned are reasons for caution.
So Contempt of Court is only for the ‘big’ cases,
What about when the right to an unbiased trial is actually abused by the state?
What about when HMCTS produce and publish a newsletter that is distributed to judges, magistrates and court legal advisors that names defendants, defames them and gives those that should be impartial, cut and paste legal arguments against those defendants?
What then?
Well they double down on the abuse or pretend it didn’t happen and try and ignore it and try and cover it up by having FOI’s taken down from public view that expose this back door method of tilting the justice system in favour of the state.
For every murderous Axel there are 10,000 defendants whose cases have been interfered with by this shameful HMCTS back-channel which means that it is a more pernicious and wide ranging erosion of justice.
So, if any defamation/contempt specialists would like to make a difference to the administration of public justice to the masses then please feel free to contact this poster…
Thanks for writing but I'd prefer it if you confined your comments to the topic I raised.
Measured and wise words, Joshua, if I may say so. I have been presenting to my Labour Party Branch Committee (political cards on the table, and why not?) about the need for reducing the reflex action of more and more prison time for the non dangerous and nonviolent vast majority and the need for options [ They are with me, by the way]. It gives me no satisfaction to add that I had identified the Bulger case as a factor frustrating prison reform in 1993 and sort of predicted a similar atrocity that would tend to halt adult approaches to crime and sentencing - and then along comes the Southport multiple killings! We must -all of us who care- urge this administration to stand firm in its commendable resolve to continue with a constructive review to tackle our unhealthy and non adult obsession with prison as though generally speaking that presents any sort of “answer”.
As ever, a very good piece. I see other commentators are pointing out that the collapsing trial was only a possibility. Given the trauma that would be caused to the parents in needing to testify, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to be cautious and try to ensure the risk of a retrial (thus requiring testimony again) was minimal. While the evidence of homicide was overwhelming, as you know, that doesn't stop a trial. Had he continued to refuse to give pleas, the court would have had no option but to continue to enter not-guilty pleas and thus a trial would have been held.
You note the possibility of a whole-life order. My understanding is that this is not possible for someone under the age of 21. Indeed, the starting points are much lower where a person is under the age of 18 at the time of the attack (which I think was the case here). That does raise the question about whether the media will properly report any tariff given that it was Parliament, not the judiciary, who set the framework. Of course, if the judge decides that a hospital order is required, then we could get the furore that accompanied Valdo Calocane receiving the same sentence.
I confidently predict lots of bandwagons approaching with columnists and politicians of all parties looking to see how they can climb aboard...
Thank you. I should have paid more attention to sentencing.
As you say, Rudakubana was under 18 at the time he committed murder. So the sentence will be detention during His Majesty’s pleasure (s259 Sentencing Act 2020).
That sentence is included in the definition of "life sentence" (s324). So the court must make an order under s321.
That order must be a minimum term unless the court is required to make a whole life order. But the court is not required to make a whole life order in the case of a person under 21 when the offence was committed.
Schedule 21 deals with minimum terms. Paragraph 2 would have applied if he had been 21 or over at the time of the offence.
Paragraph 3 would have applied if he had been 18 or over. In that case, the starting point would have been 30 years.
By paragraph 5A, the equivalent starting point for a person who was 17 is 27 years.
There are, of course, aggravating factors and some mitigating factors.
Does that sound right to you, Alisdair?
Like you, I found it incredibly complicated, but these thoughts echo my own. What has never been tested is the point you raise above, which is whether "not required to make a whole life order" means that they can still make a whole life order or whether they can't. The wording of 'not required' suggests there is discretion to impose such an order, but the implication of the rest of Schedule 21 is they can't.
Thank you again. I wondered about that. On reflection, I think that a relatively long fixed minimum term is most likely.