Murder 6 children - Get 15 Years BUT Copper steals £1m - Gets 23 Years

[truman 10]

My only grievance is a 15 year minimum sentence gives him hope,

 

It makes it worse when after 15 years that hope is taken away....

[llamatron 10]

That's a good point, in this case you can imagine the public hysteria if the prosecution had run with a murder charge that the jury wouldn't have accepted because they were unable to prove 'intent' and Philpott had walked free?

 

I'm sure that probably formed part of the prosecution's thinking especially as a life sentence option would be available to the presiding judge. The minimum (prison) sentence was probably lower than it might have been with a murder conviction although he might never get out in any event.

 

My only grievance is a 15 year minimum sentence gives him hope, whereas a 30 year minimum wouldn't have, irrespective of the time he eventually serves inside.

 

 

I was listening to something on radio 4 where they said that the minimum sentence had to be half the determinate sentence that would have been given had she not given life which is an indeterminate sentence (I am unsure why but she said the determinate sentence would have been 30 years so the minimum had to be 15). I am guessing the maximum determinate sentence for manslaughter is 30 years?

[boyfriday 21]

It makes it worse when after 15 years that hope is taken away....

 

Indeed, hopefully the public interest will be remembered and accounted for at that time.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 11:36 ----------

 

I was listening to something on radio 4 where they said that the minimum sentence had to be half the determinate sentence that would have been given had she not given life which is an indeterminate sentence (I am unsure why but she said the determinate sentence would have been 30 years so the minimum had to be 15). I am guessing the maximum determinate sentence for manslaughter is 30 years?

 

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. There are murderers serving longer than 30 year minimum sentences and some on whole life tariffs, so I'm not sure where that leaves us, but it does sound a reasonable way of arriving at the minimum sentence for manslaughter.

[Emily Moore 10]

So each poor child's life is only worth for 2.5 years; why did they not get 6 life sentences?

 

The corrupt copper gets 23 years but didn't kill anyone.

 

Doesn't make sense; please explain?

 

Perhaps you just need to get the facts right in the first place.

 

If you are refering to Philpot he didn't murder anyone. He was found guilty on 6 charges of manslaughter and sentenced to a minimum tariff of 15 years, after which his case will be reviewed and he may or may not be released.

 

The best copper selling heroine will probably be responsible for the loss of far more than 6 lives but was given a 23 year sentence that will be reviewed after perhaps 10 years when he could be released on parole.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

Police officers are held to a higher standard than the general public. I doubt Philpott will ever be released tbh.

[BLADE8T1 10]

Now WHERE in my post do I mention murder, please point that out to me I know what he got, and I've said what he deserves; I mean if you condone killing 6 kids, yes killing them; all I can do is weep.

 

Is this good enough?

 

"But JFK they did a dummy run, so it was premeditated and it should have been murder mate"

 

And don't you DARE! say that I condone killing 6 kids!!!!!!!!!

[ronthenekred 10]

Now WHERE in my post do I mention murder, please point that out to me I know what he got, and I've said what he deserves; I mean if you condone killing 6 kids, yes killing them; all I can do is weep.

 

Oh stop it for Christs sake..no one has condoned any such act.

[redfox 10]

There have been many comments on here as to what the law requires to be proven to obtain a conviction for murder. It is not evidence of an intent to kill - just consider how many arguments could be presented to prevent a conviction if that were the law. It is why trying to prove attempted murder is often very hard indeed - you do have to prove an intention to kill.

You must prove an intention to cause really serious harm (GBH) to convict someone of murder. As some have correctly observed the Crown never suggested in this case he intended to cause serious harm, actually it was exactly the opposite. He wanted to be the rescuing hero of the children, destroy the house and improve his position in the custody dispute. All very warped but warranted prosecution for manslaughter.

 

The sentence was a discretionary life sentence, people have missed the judge's comments about his dangerousness which will have an impact on his prospects of release as will the fact he has a previous conviction for serious violence and was on bail for another violent offence at the time.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Do you not watch the news, it was widely reported that they did a dummy run and decided to set up his ex

I still maintain that neither you nor I can know all the evidence heard by the Court- so we do not have enough information to decide anything.

[spilldig 188]

The courts have always placed money above lives. You only have to look at the sentencing of the great train robbers.

[truman 10]

The courts have always placed money above lives. You only have to look at the sentencing of the great train robbers.

 

Don't you think errant bobbies should be judged harsher than "civilians"?

[BLADE8T1 10]

The courts have always placed money above lives. You only have to look at the sentencing of the great train robbers.

 

Lets not forget though,its money from hard drugs.