Totally disgusting south London police

Cobra said:
On the evening of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and 16-year-old Fred Barras (both Irish Travellers from Newark-upon-Trent in Nottinghamshire) – broke into Martin's house. Shooting downwards in the dark with his shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.
Click to expand...
I knew there was more to it (though I can’t find decent coverage of the evidence.
Garry Edwards said:
No, that was very different, and was murder. He shot and murdered a man who was trying to get away and who presented no threat to him, after lying in wait with an illegally held S.1 shotgun. He failed to call the police, failed to get medical help, ran away and hid.
Click to expand...
I’ll settle for Garry’s account.

The reduction to manslaughter was due to ‘diminished responsibility’, the courts view of the crime was a million miles away from Max Clifford’s ‘self defence’
 
Phil V said:
I knew there was more to it (though I can’t find decent coverage of the evidence.

I’ll settle for Garry’s account.

The reduction to manslaughter was due to ‘diminished responsibility’, the courts view of the crime was a million miles away from Max Clifford’s ‘self defence’
Click to expand...
And there was much more to it than that.
I said that he was in illegal possession of a S.1. Shotgun. He had previously held a S.2. (ordinary) shotgun certificate, but this had been revoked about 5 years earlier, when he used it in similar cirumstances. He then aquired a 5-shot Winchester pump action shotgun, illegally, which requires a S.1., and that's the one that he used. From memory, I think that he claimed that he had found it on the farm, but that isn't easy to believe, not that it would have justified his possession of it, even if true.

Certainly, there was evidence of "diminished responsibility" but for some reason his QC ignored this, in other words there is evidence that he was very badly represented. I think that the public outrage led to the (effective) reduction to "Manslaughter by reason of". In addition, there was incorrect police evidence in that the lack of shot spread indicated (but only to them) that he had fired at "point blank" range. There is no such thing as point blank range with a shotgun, but we assume that they meant from a very close distance. In fact, with the choke fitted to his gun there would have been zero shot spread at a distance of less than 5 yards, which made his account that he fired from the top of the stairs much more believable. The police make this type of statement all the time, they should hire real expert witnesses in these cases.

There was a lot of public support for him at the time, he wasn't really a farmer, he was a merchant seaman who had inherited the farm, which was derelict. He was single, lived in very poor circumstances and had nobody in his life except his sister, he had been burgled many times previously and it seems that the police never attended when he rang 999, so he got a bit p***ed off and decided to take the law into his own hands. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens in rural areas, even if the police try, and even if they can actually find the place, response times can be very long.

Since being released from prison he has again claimed to have a firearm (he can never again have any firearm, including an airgun, legally as he is now a prohibited person by virtue of having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years or more) and the police carried out a search but found nothing.
 
I'll never understand why he didn't shoot into the ceiling, sure it's not great, but better than killing someone. I guess he just lost the plot and the charge was correct, however the papers made him out to be a victim of poor justice.
 
Dave70D said:
Even if the man is charged with manslaughter and walks out of court, his punishment is, He has to live with the thought that he killed someone, and that is hard to live with.
Click to expand...

Serious question...do you have first hand experience of such?
 
I've not read the whole thread, but I understand that if you kill someone defending your property/family it is in your best interest to be arrested, that way everything is recorded.
I may be wrong...I'm sure someone will correct me.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Difficult one.

The get out of jail is ‘reasonable force’ but what is reasonable?
Click to expand...

The law changed in 2013, a householder can now use 'disproportionate force' if defending themselves in a residential property.

Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. The provision came into force on 25 April 2013 and applies to cases where the alleged force was used after that date. The provision does not apply restrospectively. It provides that where the case is one involving a householder (please see the section below for further details) the degree of force used by the householder is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate. A householder will therefore be able to use force which is disproportionate but not grossly disporportionate.
Click to expand...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Difficult one.

The get out of jail is ‘reasonable force’ but what is reasonable?
Click to expand...
What is reasonable is what 12 ordinary people decide is reasonable in the circumstances described to the court. The judge doesn't decide, the police don't decide, the prosecution barrister doesn't decide. It's soley down to the jury.

It's for this reason that I wish less people tried to get out of jury duty when called. I'd love to do it, particularly as there are several laws I will never convict under as I believe them to be iniquitous.
 
And the burglar has been named as 37 year old Henry Vincent, named by Kent police in January and wanted for questioning over a distraction burglary.
His family of course are saying he was a lovely chap, father of three girls, how appalled they are that the old bloke was bailed.
 
onomatopoeia said:
What is reasonable is what 12 ordinary people decide is reasonable in the circumstances described to the court. The judge doesn't decide, the police don't decide, the prosecution barrister doesn't decide. It's soley down to the jury.

It's for this reason that I wish less people tried to get out of jury duty when called. I'd love to do it, particularly as there are several laws I will never convict under as I believe them to be iniquitous.
Click to expand...

So you would be a biased juror before you heard any evidence?

Useful.

The checks and balances exist to lessen bias and the civic duty of being a juror is a highly responsible one and carries a lot of rules of conduct with penalties for breaking them. If you or anyone else could not abide by what is expected of a juror then best that you never serve.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
So you would be a biased juror before you heard any evidence?

Useful.

The checks and balances exist to lessen bias and the civic duty of being a juror is a highly responsible one and carries a lot of rules of conduct with penalties for breaking them. If you or anyone else could not abide by what is expected of a juror then best that you never serve.
Click to expand...

You don't get a choice to serve or not do you?
 
Dave1 said:
The law changed in 2013, a householder can now use 'disproportionate force' if defending themselves in a residential property.



https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime
Click to expand...

Little bit of cherry picking going on here.

The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).
Click to expand...

And:

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 provides clarification of the operation of the existing common law and statutory defences. Section 76, section 76(9) in particular, neither abolishes the common law and statutory defences nor does it change the current test that allows the use of reasonable force.
Click to expand...

What does this mean? In the end Steve is right, the overriding factors is the force or disproportionate force must be reasonable in the context in which the law applies.
 
I forgot to add, there seems to be exasperation with the murder arrest, not manslaughter, often found with the mens rea (the guilty state of mind), R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226 stated the intention to kill (the mens rea) can occur in the circumstances, rather than pre-planning.
 
Gogster said:
I forgot to add, there seems to be exasperation with the murder arrest, not manslaughter, often found with the mens rea (the guilty state of mind), R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226 stated the intention to kill (the mens rea) can occur in the circumstances, rather than pre-planning.
Click to expand...
Correct. To be guilty of murder, there has to be an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (if memory serves me). Pre planning is neither here nor there. If charged, he then has the usual defences to to persue if pleading not guilty. Diminished Responsibility, Autonomy, Self Defence, Insanity etc. I'm working off memory here so I stand to be corrected if certain defences no longer exist, or have been changed.
The police had no option but to arrest him, and if the evidence points towards an intent, he will be charged.
 
Gogster said:
Little bit of cherry picking going on here.

The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).
Click to expand...

And:



What does this mean? In the end Steve is right, the overriding factors is the force or disproportionate force must be reasonable in the context in which the law applies.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking? it's a direct paragraph from the CPS guidance, and nothing you've posted changes what I posted. The law was changed from 'reasonable force' to 'disproportionate force' in 2013. The reasonableness provision is that the householder believed his actions were reasonable even if they were later perceived to be disproportionate.

Read the last line of the CPS guidance again.

Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. The provision came into force on 25 April 2013 and applies to cases where the alleged force was used after that date. The provision does not apply restrospectively.

It provides that where the case is one involving a householder (please see the section below for further details) the degree of force used by the householder is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate.

A householder will therefore be able to use force which is disproportionate but not grossly disporportionate.
Click to expand...
 
rick448 said:
You don't get a choice to serve or not do you?
Click to expand...

There are many exclusions but if you are called for jury service then you go, you can express your preferences but the jury clerk will kick arse.....

That said, difficult and or long trials, they will ask for volunteers but if there are not enough stepping forward then they will allocate someone from that day’s pool of jurors.

The judges can and do punish the errant jurors.
 
Gogster said:
No it isn't, this isn't America.
Click to expand...

Really.
Go to jury service, and express true bias (true bias, not "I can't be arsed with this, bias), and see the result.
 
Dave1 said:
Cherry picking? it's a direct paragraph from the CPS guidance, and nothing you've posted changes what I posted. The law was changed from 'reasonable force' to 'disproportionate force' in 2013. The reasonableness provision is that the householder believed his actions were reasonable even if they were later perceived to be disproportionate.

Read the last line of the CPS guidance again.
Click to expand...

I've read it Dave, it's clear you didn't read my quoted passages.

A subsection was appended to the law, however it did not change the underlying 'reasonable force,' it added accommodation for a homeowner who may have used force, which in other circumstances would have been deemed disproportionate, and a give guidance to prosecutors. It does not give carte blanche for home owners to wield whatever weapon they wish and receive blanket protection from prosecution, common law reasonable force still supersedes.

For your re-reading:

The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).
Click to expand...

And:

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 provides clarification of the operation of the existing common law and statutory defences. Section 76, section 76(9) in particular, neither abolishes the common law and statutory defences nor does it change the current test that allows the use of reasonable force.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
@Gogster

I knew the victim.
I knew the perpetrator.
I believed in the guilt of the accused. (For which, without me on the jury, he was convicted and still resides at Her Majesty's Pleasure)
I was, at the time, in the legal profession.

Would you rather I had lied, and served on the jury, knowing full well from the outset what my own verdict would be?
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
And the burglar has been named as 37 year old Henry Vincent, named by Kent police in January and wanted for questioning over a distraction burglary.
His family of course are saying he was a lovely chap, father of three girls, how appalled they are that the old bloke was bailed.
Click to expand...
Of course he was a lovely bloke, evidence speaks for itself. Rather than get a job like most lovely blokes do he chose to rob an elderly couple, one of which suffers from dementia the other a 78 yr old, stands to reason he was a lovely bloke. I bet his accomplice was too.
 
viv1969 said:
I knew the victim.
I knew the perpetrator.
I believed in the guilt of the accused. (For which, without me on the jury, he was convicted and still resides at Her Majesty's Pleasure)
I was, at the time, in the legal profession.

Would you rather I had lied, and served on the jury, knowing full well from the outset what my own verdict would be?
Click to expand...

The first reason was more than enough to seal the deal

The second was icing on the cake
 
viv1969 said:
@Gogster

I knew the victim.
I knew the perpetrator.
I believed in the guilt of the accused. (For which, without me on the jury, he was convicted and still resides at Her Majesty's Pleasure)
I was, at the time, in the legal profession.

Would you rather I had lied, and served on the jury, knowing full well from the outset what my own verdict would be?
Click to expand...

No not at all, I apologise, I've stood with numerous bored people in court houses, explaining all the 'clever things' they were going to tell the judge to get out of service.

Presumptuous and disrespectful of me, I thought your were being flippant and I apologise.
 
Gogster said:
No not at all, I apologise, I've stood with numerous bored people in court houses, explaining all the 'clever things' they were going to tell the judge to get out of service.

Presumptuous and disrespectful of me, I thought your were being flippant and I apologise.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
So you would be a biased juror before you heard any evidence?

Useful.

The checks and balances exist to lessen bias and the civic duty of being a juror is a highly responsible one and carries a lot of rules of conduct with penalties for breaking them. If you or anyone else could not abide by what is expected of a juror then best that you never serve.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of rules, but being required to convict by anyone, even the judge, is not amongst them. Jury nullification, where the jury refuses to convict if they do not support the law under which the case is tried, is allowed and has a history going back over 300 years (see Penn and Mead, aka "Bushel's case", where it originated). A more recent example (in living memory, anyway) would be Ponting, a civil servant who leaked information about the sinking of the General Belgrano in a clear direct contravention of the OSA, but was accquited, despite the jury being told by the judge at trial they should convict.
 
onomatopoeia said:
There are a lot of rules, but being required to convict by anyone, even the judge, is not amongst them. Jury nullification, where the jury refuses to convict if they do not support the law under which the case is tried, is allowed and has a history going back over 300 years (see Penn and Mead, aka "Bushel's case", where it originated). A more recent example (in living memory, anyway) would be Ponting, a civil servant who leaked information about the sinking of the General Belgrano in a clear direct contravention of the OSA, but was accquited, despite the jury being told by the judge at trial they should convict.
Click to expand...

Best of luck with that. There will always be issues but 1 case in living memory out of the jury determined trials does not set a precedent that would or should change the system. The process is constantly reviewed in any case and trials that are set down are rare. The review of case outcomes is also ongoing and does drive change.

Nothing is perfect but in the digital age things are becoming more transparent. That said, the recent muck up at the CPS in withholding important papers from the defence shows there will always be a need for improvement.

That sad, you have stated your wish that could be on a jury, I wish you could too, it is useful to bang up deliberately errant jurors, keeps the rest in line and focused on the job in hand ☠️

Bit of a bummer if you got a serial shoplifter case though,, one afternoon case and a couple of days drinking tea ....

Get your MP on the case of changing things - it’s what they are there for.
 
Last edited:
Gogster said:
This, does not help the public perception of the legal process.

View attachment 123761
Click to expand...

Another news media outlet thinking that unpicking the rule if law and supporting processes is their remit, no doubt their readers will see through this shameful attempt at brain-washing them by twisting facts...... oh hang on it is the Stat, Mail, Express, Sun....

Forgot it was how this thread started....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top