Jo Cox's murderer given full life sentence

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Thomas Mair refused to say anything when he was asked how do you plead at the start of the trial so, a plea of not guilty was entered on his behalf. This resulted in the family and friends of her and the gentleman who attempted to come to her rescue being subjected to hearing loads of evidence related to the incident. Surely entering a guilty plea on his behalf would have spared them all a lot of grief. I've no idea if that would be allowed or not though, just putting it out there.

[AndyM_1875]

Mair refused to say anything when charged yet he wanted to address the court before sentencing. Thankfully the judge was having none of it and said he (Mair) had had ample opportunity to address the court during the trial.He has been given a whole life term meaning no parole and no release ever. Good. Also glad to see the BBC referring to Mair as a terrorist.

All that remains now is for the English Justice system to throw this particular piece of fascist filth into the deepest, darkest hole that they can find.

[PeeJay]

Thomas Mair refused to say anything when he was asked how do you plead at the start of the trial so, a plea of not guilty was entered on his behalf. This resulted in the family and friends of her and the gentleman who attempted to come to her rescue being subjected to hearing loads of evidence related to the incident. Surely entering a guilty plea on his behalf would have spared them all a lot of grief. I've no idea if that would be allowed or not though, just putting it out there.

Don't see how you could do that in the light of "innocent until proven guilty" ... it either means something or it doesn't, and it applies for everybody, however distasteful that may be with certain people.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Aye, I know. Maybe it should apply though, then you wouldnae get fuds messing about when they are asked how they plead. I realise its not as straightforward as that though.

[Future17]

Mair refused to say anything when charged yet he wanted to address the court before sentencing. Thankfully the judge was having none of it and said he (Mair) had had ample opportunity to address the court during the trial.He has been given a whole life term meaning no parole and no release ever. Good. Also glad to see the BBC referring to Mair as a terrorist.

All that remains now is for the English Justice system to throw this particular piece of fascist filth into the deepest, darkest hole that they can find.

I would expect the Judge's refusal to form some part of an appeal against sentencing.

[lucky]

Haters hate and I'm delighted that the judge never gave him a platform to spew his vile views in public. He murdered an innocent woman and attacked our democracy. If he believed in his cause he'd have used the ballot box not the bullet for his arguments.

[greenlex]

Don't see how you could do that in the light of "innocent until proven guilty" ... it either means something or it doesn't, and it applies for everybody, however distasteful that may be with certain people.
Id change it. Innocent until proven guilty is all good and well but If you are not pleading innocent then you should be assummed guilty by your silence. If the Procurator Fiscal or its English equivilent thinks it has enough evidence aganst you to bring the prosecution then you should at the very least challenge it if innocent.. Watse of time, money and uneeded personal stress and anxiety.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Id change it. Innocent until proven guilty is all good and well but If you are not pleading innocent then you should be assummed guilty by your silence. If the Procurator Fiscal or its English equivilent thinks it has enough evidence aganst you to bring the prosecution then you should at the very least challenge it if innocent.. Watse of time, money and uneeded personal stress and anxiety.

Thats what I meant to post at the end of the OP. ;-)

[PeeJay]

Id change it. Innocent until proven guilty is all good and well but If you are not pleading innocent then you should be assummed guilty by your silence. If the Procurator Fiscal or its English equivilent thinks it has enough evidence aganst you to bring the prosecution then you should at the very least challenge it if innocent.. Watse of time, money and uneeded personal stress and anxiety.

If you say person X is assumed to be guilty, the burden of proof no longer lies with the procurator fiscal, but with the defendant - I find it difficult to believe that in this present day and age people seriously think it is proper and correct to expect somebody to "prove their innocence in a court of law" ... the onus must always be the other way round, no exceptions - once you remove this basic premise you open the floodgates to all sorts of misuse. It is a human right, it applies to everyone.

[CropleyWasGod]

Id change it. Innocent until proven guilty is all good and well but If you are not pleading innocent then you should be assummed guilty by your silence. If the Procurator Fiscal or its English equivilent thinks it has enough evidence aganst you to bring the prosecution then you should at the very least challenge it if innocent.. Watse of time, money and uneeded personal stress and anxiety.

"You have the right to remain silent" is at the heart of the criminal justice system.

[ACLeith]

The statements outside the court by her sister and husband were inspirational. Uniting people in a community will always triumph in the long run over those who preach hate.

[AndyM_1875]

I would expect the Judge's refusal to form some part of an appeal against sentencing.

I would expect any appeal to be given short shrift.
A fascist neo nazi inspired terrorist attacked a 5 foot tall mother of two, shooting her twice and then stabbing her more than 15 times.

[--------]

If you say person X is assumed to be guilty, the burden of proof no longer lies with the procurator fiscal, but with the defendant - I find it difficult to believe that in this present day and age people seriously think it is proper and correct to expect somebody to "prove their innocence in a court of law" ... the onus must always be the other way round, no exceptions - once you remove this basic premise you open the floodgates to all sorts of misuse. It is a human right, it applies to everyone.




:agree: Yup.

I'd say that a disregard for the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is one of the distinguishing marks of fascist ideology. Human rights in this country are already under serious threat.

The extreme Right doesn't need any encouragement right now.

[Mibbes Aye]

"You have the right to remain silent" is at the heart of the criminal justice system.

And presumption of innocence likewise I guess - not relying on the defendant to prove they didn't do something.

When I heard about the attack it reminded me of the gay pub bombing in Soho, back around 2000. That felt a bit random and just hate-filled.

It's awful she lost her life and her loved ones were deprived of her, but hopefully any positive from it is it inspires others to reject messages of hate and division.

[RyeSloan]

I would expect any appeal to be given short shrift.
A fascist neo nazi inspired terrorist attacked a 5 foot tall mother of two, shooting her twice and then stabbing her more than 15 times.

Find it difficult to believe you can appeal a sentence because you weren't given the opportunity to speak before sentencing when as the judge has already clarified the defendant has been given ample opportunity throughout the trial.

You can't just appeal because you want to, you have to demonstrate that there are grounds for appeal.

Anyway I agree even if it is appealed I can't see any judge giving it much air time...sometimes the justice system needs to be seen to be delivering justice and this case is definitely one of those occasions.

[greenlex]

If you say person X is assumed to be guilty, the burden of proof no longer lies with the procurator fiscal, but with the defendant - I find it difficult to believe that in this present day and age people seriously think it is proper and correct to expect somebody to "prove their innocence in a court of law" ... the onus must always be the other way round, no exceptions - once you remove this basic premise you open the floodgates to all sorts of misuse. It is a human right, it applies to everyone.





What I'm saying is if you are not pleading innocence.( and you are getting the opportunity to plead just that and go to trial) then you are then guilty. Evidence is available or it wouldn't get to court the first place.
How do you think it works? You plead not guilty and it goes to
trial in court. Prosecution provide evidence and so does the defence.
I see no human right issue if you do not plead innocent.
A Judge can view the evidence go over it with a jury if need be and pass sentence if you do not wish to defend the charge.

[greenlex]

"You have the right to remain silent" is at the heart of the criminal justice system.

Right up till you are charged with something and find yourself in court: This right is so you don't say something that might incriminate yourself. When you stand in court charged with an offence if you say nothing there then you would be presumed guilty. If you are innocent you should ( andIm sure in 100% of cases where a defendant is innocent they do) say so. That won't incriminate you in any way

[Hibernia&Alba]

Is a full life sentence at the discretion of the judge, or do certain criteria have to be met first e.g. the person being psychiatrically assessed as unsafe ever to release? I think it's very rare for whole life sentences to be handed down, is it not?

[Betty Boop]

Is a full life sentence at the discretion of the judge, or do certain criteria have to be met first e.g. the person being psychiatrically assessed as unsafe ever to release? I think it's very rare for whole life sentences to be handed down, is it not?
The Secretary of State can release him.

[Andy74]

Right up till you are charged with something and find yourself in court: This right is so you don't say something that might incriminate yourself. When you stand in court charged with an offence if you say nothing there then you would be presumed guilty. If you are innocent you should ( andIm sure in 100% of cases where a defendant is innocent they do) say so. That won't incriminate you in any way

Not really. It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty of something. That onus is on them and there is no need for you to have to say anything to either help or hinder that process unless you chose to.

[lyonhibs]

Not really. It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty of something. That onus is on them and there is no need for you to have to say anything to either help or hinder that process unless you chose to.

Yup.

Whether you are the chattiest suspect ever or say not a word, your default status in the eyes of the law must be innocent until proven otherwise by the prosecution.

IMO the idea that silence = presumed guilt is slightly scary

[Scouse Hibee]

Right up till you are charged with something and find yourself in court: This right is so you don't say something that might incriminate yourself. When you stand in court charged with an offence if you say nothing there then you would be presumed guilty. If you are innocent you should ( andIm sure in 100% of cases where a defendant is innocent they do) say so. That won't incriminate you in any way

So after following the rules of the justice system you get into court and then can be presumed guilty because you are silent. Absolutely not, the prosecution have to prove you're guilty beyond reasonable doubt. To suggest you can just be presumed guilty is laughable.

[AndyM_1875]

Is a full life sentence at the discretion of the judge, or do certain criteria have to be met first e.g. the person being psychiatrically assessed as unsafe ever to release? I think it's very rare for whole life sentences to be handed down, is it not?

There are quite a few cases of individuals serving whole life terms and there is absolutely no chance of release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

[JeMeSouviens]

From wiki regarding England & Wales, not sure exactly what the situation is in Scotland:


Adverse inferences from silence[edit]
At common law, adverse inferences could be drawn from silence only in limited circumstances in which an accusation of guilt was made. It was necessary that the accused be on even terms with the person making a charge and that it was reasonable to expect the accused to answer immediately the charge put to him (although it was not clear if the rule applied where the accusation was made by or in the presence of police officers).

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.[6] Further it is questionable whether a conviction based mainly on silence would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. If there has been a breach of the PACE Codes of Practice, the evidence is more likely to be excluded under s. 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Code envisages, amongst other things, recorded police interviews taking place at a police station, where the accused has access to legal advice and after the caution in the following terms has been given:

You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.



Edit - In Scotland:


Unlike England and Wales, Scottish courts do not permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the silence of an accused person when questioned by the police.

[Hibby Bairn]

There are quite a few cases of individuals serving whole life terms and there is absolutely no chance of release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

A few unsavoury characters in there!

[Hibs Class]

There are quite a few cases of individuals serving whole life terms and there is absolutely no chance of release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

Three just in the last month or so, and every possibility of another such sentence being handed down to Stephen Port tomorrow

[SHODAN]

The Daily Mail are running an absolutely jawdropping story trying to smear immigrants (in general) and Jo Cox herself for her own murder.

Absolute cretins.

[Pretty Boy]

The Daily Mail are running an absolutely jawdropping story trying to smear immigrants (in general) and Jo Cox herself for her own murder.

Absolute cretins.

Not suprising.

I despair at the number of people (particularly the women) in my work who read the Mail (because the celeb gossip is good apparently) then quote other 'news' they report as fact.

The Mail was the only paper (excluding the FT) not to carry the story on it's front page. Coincedence?

[Tyler Durden]

Not suprising.

I despair at the number of people (particularly the women) in my work who read the Mail (because the celeb gossip is good apparently) then quote other 'news' they report as fact.

The Mail was the only paper (excluding the FT) not to carry the story on it's front page. Coincedence?

It's a vile rag. Imagine the killer was an immigrant....

Slightly less offensive/sinister but an example of the hilarious hypocrisy was their coverage of the England football team last week. An online headline on "England's skipper stripper shame" whilst the sidebar shows 4 stories of celeb women in varying states of undress.

Hopefully people take notice of the Stop Funding Hate campaign

[Bristolhibby]

If you say person X is assumed to be guilty, the burden of proof no longer lies with the procurator fiscal, but with the defendant - I find it difficult to believe that in this present day and age people seriously think it is proper and correct to expect somebody to "prove their innocence in a court of law" ... the onus must always be the other way round, no exceptions - once you remove this basic premise you open the floodgates to all sorts of misuse. It is a human right, it applies to everyone.





Agree. No matter how distasteful, silence should never EVER be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

J

[Future17]

I would expect any appeal to be given short shrift.
A fascist neo nazi inspired terrorist attacked a 5 foot tall mother of two, shooting her twice and then stabbing her more than 15 times.


Find it difficult to believe you can appeal a sentence because you weren't given the opportunity to speak before sentencing when as the judge has already clarified the defendant has been given ample opportunity throughout the trial.

You can't just appeal because you want to, you have to demonstrate that there are grounds for appeal.

Anyway I agree even if it is appealed I can't see any judge giving it much air time...sometimes the justice system needs to be seen to be delivering justice and this case is definitely one of those occasions.

You can appeal against sentence and/or conviction. The two processes are separate, albeit they are sometimes immediately consecutive. Just because someone doesn't want to say something which may affect whether or not they are convicted, doesn't mean they don't want to say something which may affect the sentence imposed if they are convicted.

Don't get me wrong, this guy was clearly going to use the opportunity for some sort of grandstanding and the Judge probably wanted to spare the family having to be subjected to that. However, in doing so, he may inadvertently prolonged their suffering.

[greenlex]

So after following the rules of the justice system you get into court and then can be presumed guilty because you are silent. Absolutely not, the prosecution have to prove you're guilty beyond reasonable doubt. To suggest you can just be presumed guilty is laughable.
Presumed guilty because you are not prepared to defend the charge. The evidence is there to get you to court in the first place. Evidence reviewed by a judge/ jury before sentencing. IMO if you dont plead innocent then you are surely guilty. You don't deserve a trial as such IMO so laugh away. In what circumstances would an innocent person charged with something chose not to plead innocence and remain silent in the dock?