Why Are They Overiding The Trial Judge Here?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29734816
The judge said life should mean life so why are our modern do gooders letting this lowlife out?

[agchristie]

The Parole Board have not overridden the Trial judge who recommended a minimum 30 year term which he has served. The judge gave an opinion that his crimes were so 'heinous' that he may never be released. That was his opinion and not binding.

All that said, these were dreadful crimes and it is not surprising the Police feel revulsion for the decision to release him. Whatever the case may be, if a life term is imposed then I am all in favour of it meaning they remain imprisoned until their last breath.

[jno]

A 30-year minimum term was recommended by the trial judge, who said the crimes were so heinous that Roberts might never be freed.

not quite the same thing

[mushroom25]

no he didn't - the trial judge recommended a minimum tariff of 30 years and said the crimes were so heinous that Roberts might never be freed, although adding that this could be a case where life imprisonment meant exactly that.

it's odd that in all the appeals and parole hearings in the last 15 years all have ruled that he remain in prison, and yet he's being recommended for release now. have the authorities been getting it wrong all these years?

[Peter Pedant]

because they are required to by new laws
we are all required to obey the law TTT

the fact you may not like the new law is irrelevant

think 1833 - the slave owners certainly didnt like the new law that said slaves should be free.

and the finance act 1982 I REALLY hated that one

[ToraToraTora]

sorry PP what law is it that says killers must be released? I'm sure that would have been on the news at some point.

[Ric.ror]

Now of course I am dying to know what the act of 1982 was

[jno]

///it's odd that in all the appeals and parole hearings in the last 15 years all have ruled that he remain in prison, and yet he's being recommended for release now. have the authorities been getting it wrong all these years? ///

Why would that be wrong? The whole point of having repeated parole hearings over the years is to see if things have changed. They've now concluded that things have. It's not 1966 any more. Most Britons weren't even born then.

[agchristie]

Failing health could be near the top of the list but pure speculation. We will not know the finer detail of the PB's rationale.

[youngmafbog]

Laws are only any use if the majority of the public agree with them. Under normal circumstances this happend since the Government is elected by the people for the people.

The problem comes when unelected influences come into play such as the EU and ECHR. Right-on liberals have infiltrated areas of authority and now operate with impunity, The lunatic really is running the asylum since laws now only reflect the view of a very small loud mouthed minority.


PP, you analogy is very poor as you have totally ignored the other side of the coin.

The slaves didnt like the slavery law (which was wrong ) and so fought against it. So in a similar fashion if TTT thinks the law is wrong he is entitled to say so. Of course the right-on lefty brigade such as yourself will try to belittle and put him down in your usual way. I wonder when the name calling will start?

[ToraToraTora]

....well I'm still waiting to find out which law it is that means we have to let these lowlives out.

[agchristie]

An interesting ruling here...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28272742

[jno]

///Of course the right-on lefty brigade such as yourself will try to belittle and put him down in your usual way. I wonder when the name calling will start?///

"right on lefty brigade"? It's started already, then.

[douglas9401]

The Metropolitan Police Federation said it was a "scandalous, hurtful and abhorrent decision"

And if any body is going to know about scandalous, hurtful and abhorrent decisions, it's the Metropolitan Police.

[andy-hughes]

As I understand it, the Parole Board's decision is based on the individual prisoner's liklehood of re-offending, and they appear to have decided that nearly eighty, this prisoner is now safe to be released.

I think questions should have been raised about what the future holds for a thoroughly institutionalised old man who is going to re-enter a world that might as well be Mars for all the familiarity it is going to have for him.

Add to that the backlash from the police concerning his release, and it is starting to add up to a bad move all round.

[ludwig]

You do wonder what is the point of releasing him at that age after all this time. He probably would have preferred to stay inside.

[mushroom25]

andy, he's had spells on day release however, it has been reported, that he's not exactly been a good boy while he's been out:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-killers-stay-locked-up-1889635

read your way through Mrs May's grandstanding and you'll find //In 2009 prison authorities ruled he is still a menace after it emerged he had waged a five-year campaign of violent threats against the owners of an animal sanctuary in Derbyshire where he worked on day release.//

[ummmm]

The cynic in me thinks it might be the final punishment.

At 78 how will he cope with the outside world? My guess is he won't...

[emeritus]

He will cope very well I suspect

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171773/Police-killer-Harry-Robertss-year-terror-campaign-silence-woman-kept-bars.html

[BlackadderV]

Had Roberts committed his crime one year earlier he would have been sentenced to death, and as police killers were never reprieved (with one notable exception) he would have been hanged.

[ladybirder]

That link is horrendous emeritus. I fear for the owners of the animal sanctuary and their poor animals. After reading that I fail to understand how the board has come to the decision to release him. Sounds a very dangerous man who I wouldn't want to come into contact with.