Shaun Woodburn and the crown office

[cabbageandribs1875]

70,000 petition forces a meeting with the crown office over the lenient sentence, i do hope his family win a right to appeal :agree:


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tragic-shaun-woodburns-family-meet-11522178



The prosecutors’ offer of a meeting followed mounting pressure after Shaun’s teenage killer was sentenced to just four years’ detention.

[Thecat23]

Absolutely great response from the public. Anyone in their right mind even with the evidence given knows that’s a shockingly lenient sentence!

They deserve a proper punishment 4 years is nothing.

[Deansy]

Hopefully they get some measure of closure from this !

[CraigHibee]

good to hear

[Future17]

Unfortunately, the killer has lodged an application for leave to appeal against his conviction.

Prolonging the agony for the family.

[trev the hat]

Does 100,000 signatories not force a debate in Parliament ?
Shocking sentence !!

[Oscar T Grouch]

Does 100,000 signatories not force a debate in Parliament ?
Shocking sentence !!

100k gets the right to be considered for debate in Parliament. The whole petition thing is a con as very few petitions with 100k actually gets discussed. Hopefully this case will be dealt with by the PFCO and a proper sentence applied.

[Sir David Gray]

Does 100,000 signatories not force a debate in Parliament ?
Shocking sentence !!

Disgusting. His sentence should be extended for that alone.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I know this is an emotive subject, and i know that the sentences seem lenient, but we really cant have a jusrice system that is swayed by how big a social media response someone can generate.

If there are grounds for appeal, hopefully the Crown will use them, but a petition should habe absolutely no bearing on it at all.

[calumhibee1]

I know this is an emotive subject, and i know that the sentences seem lenient, but we really cant have a jusrice system that is swayed by how big a social media response someone can generate.

If there are grounds for appeal, hopefully the Crown will use them, but a petition should habe absolutely no bearing on it at all.

Agreed. IMO the sentence is far too lenient and should be way harsher, but the idea that you can get any Joe Bloggs signing a petition to extend the sentence and it may hold some weight doesn’t really sit right with me.

[Tornadoes70]

I know this is an emotive subject, and i know that the sentences seem lenient, but we really cant have a jusrice system that is swayed by how big a social media response someone can generate.

If there are grounds for appeal, hopefully the Crown will use them, but a petition should habe absolutely no bearing on it at all.

I think its a great thing that those who work in a position of power and influence can have pressure to bear on them when decisions they take don't sit well with vast numbers of ordinary folk whose voices normally don't get heard. Its obvious the public are horrified by the lenient sentence handed down when a life was taken and if its social media that's the messenger to the state guardians of law and order notifying them of the anger displayed by public opinion then more power to it in my opinion.

GGTTH

[Thecat23]

I think its a great thing that those who work in a position of power and influence can have pressure to bear on them when decisions they take don't sit well with vast numbers of ordinary folk whose voices normally don't get heard. Its obvious the public are horrified by the lenient sentence handed down when a life was taken and if its social media that's the messenger to the state guardians of law and order notifying them of the anger displayed by public opinion then more power to it in my opinion.

GGTTH

Well said, the evidence in this case was more than enough to have a longer sentence the judge just bottled it. ****ing ****, I hope to god they get proper justice.

[21.05.2016]

I'm no legal expert and I don't claim to know every detail of this case but 4 years for taking someones life is an utter disgrace regardless of whether the guy is being tried as a minor or not. From what i've heard, the culprit was also involved in earlier assaults that night as well so clearly this wasn't just a spontaneous act, he was clearly going about that night trying to cause trouble.


Horrendous for Shauns family and friends, although it will never bring Shaun back, I hope they get their justice and get a little bit of peace from it.

[Steve-O]

Have any of the outraged actually read the notes from sentencing? These can usually provide a bit more context. Unfortunately can’t find these ones online as the offender’s name is suppressed

[hibsmum]

So somebody who was on the police radar for at least 3 years and was going about causing total mayhem that night has the right to appeal but the family have to go through social media and a petition that has tremendous backing to even get a meeting with lawyers, seriously!!

[lord bunberry]

Agreed. IMO the sentence is far too lenient and should be way harsher, but the idea that you can get any Joe Bloggs signing a petition to extend the sentence and it may hold some weight doesn’t really sit right with me.
I don’t see it that way. A petition like this should have some sort of influence in getting the sentence reviewed. Once the review begins the petition becomes irrelevant and the experts have to be left to come to their own conclusions. If they say that the sentence handed out was correct, I still won’t agree with it, but at least people will feel that they’ve had some sort of say. What I would have liked to have seen is the CPS appealing the sentence, and I suppose that may still happen.

[Tornadoes70]

So somebody who was on the police radar for at least 3 years and was going about causing total mayhem that night has the right to appeal but the family have to go through social media and a petition that has tremendous backing to even get a meeting with lawyers, seriously!!

I totally agree with you. Its a real shame that folk in extremely distressing circumstances have had to go down the route of unconventional means to seek true justice. Its not ideal however four years does seem particularly lenient and I hope the petition is successful in putting pressure on the authorities to adjust the sentence accordingly in due course.

[lord bunberry]

From some of the things I’ve heard being behind bars is probably the safest place for him.

[Mr White]

From some of the things I’ve heard being behind bars is probably the safest place for him.

He's presumably in Polmont too which is possibly safer for him than an adult jail.

[hibsmum]

He's presumably in Polmont too which is possibly safer for him than an adult jail.

But at 18 he goes to an adult jail

[Mr White]

But at 18 he goes to an adult jail

I thought it was 21?

[lord bunberry]

He's presumably in Polmont too which is possibly safer for him than an adult jail.
Yes, which might explain his appeal.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well said, the evidence in this case was more than enough to have a longer sentence the judge just bottled it. ****ing ****, I hope to god they get proper justice.

Its not something im going to argue about as i really do understand that this is emotive and personal for many on here.

And i dont blame the family or anything like that, just very uncomfortable with a legal system based on anything other than a rigorous and dispassionate examination of the facts, facts that most on here will not know.

[Tornadoes70]

Its not something im going to argue about as i really do understand that this is emotive and personal for many on here.

And i dont blame the family or anything like that, just very uncomfortable with a legal system based on anything other than a rigorous and dispassionate examination of the facts, facts that most on here will not know.For example? I would think what you're referring to should only have added to what should have been the likely sentence of at least six to eight for manslaughter in the event of of being extremely fortunate it wasn't murder. I think your'e talking nonsense unfortunately.

[Mr White]

The not guilty plea and the light sentence are a big contradiction for me. I worked with a guy years ago who got 4 years for a serious assault. He pleaded guilty and it was his first offence. He was out in 2 but still comparing what I've read about this case with that one it seems completely out of line in terms of punishment.

[Tornadoes70]

The not guilty plea and the light sentence are a big contradiction for me. I worked with a guy years ago who got 4 years for a serious assault. He pleaded guilty and it was his first offence. He was out in 2 but still comparing what I've read about this case with that one it seems completely out of line in terms of punishment.

Absolutely. its appears on the face of it 4 years is way too lenient for taking a life. If there are special mitigating circumstances as Southharp refers to for the particularly light sentence I think the family should be informed of them. I don't think there are and a minimum six to eight years would have been more appropriate in the light of a non-murder charge. The family appear to to me to be absolutely correct to pursue the system for a more fitting sentence and i hope they obtain one.

[leither17]

Launching an appeal could extend a sentence as easily as reducing one

[Future17]

I think the application is for leave to appeal conviction, rather than sentence, so he could only end up with a longer sentence if convicted again after a retrial.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

For example? I would think what you're referring to should only have added to what should have been the likely sentence of at least six to eight for manslaughter in the event of of being extremely fortunate it wasn't murder. I think your'e talking nonsense unfortunately.

Fair enough. But a jury, and a judge and fhe procurator fiscal all seem to think one thing, and you, some random punter on an internet message board who may/may not have any expertise in fhe criminal justice system, legal process or any ofnthe facts of the case, thinks another.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Absolutely. its appears on the face of it 4 years is way too lenient for taking a life. If there are special mitigating circumstances as Southharp refers to for the particularly light sentence I think the family should be informed of them. I don't think there are and a minimum six to eight years would have been more appropriate in the light of a non-murder charge. The family appear to to me to be absolutely correct to pursue the system for a more fitting sentence and i hope they obtain one.

I didnt refer to any mitigating circumstances??! I just said that most people passing judgement on the case, amd sentence, including myself, dont know most of the facts.

I dont know anything about the case, but im sure the judge has his reasons fornthe sentence. If there are grounds to appeal, then hopefully the crown appeals, but it should be done on legal grounds, not because thousands of people saw something on Facebook.

[CropleyWasGod]

I didnt refer to any mitigating circumstances??! I just said that most people passing judgement on the case, amd sentence, including myself, dont know most of the facts.

I dont know anything about the case, but im sure the judge has his reasons fornthe sentence. If there are grounds to appeal, then hopefully the crown appeals, but it should be done on legal grounds, not because thousands of people saw something on Facebook.

Trying to look at this objectively, I do wonder if the apparently lenient sentence has encouraged the defence to appeal. Perhaps they sense that the judge had some doubt when it came to sentencing, and are trying to exploit that.

[Future17]

Trying to look at this objectively, I do wonder if the apparently lenient sentence has encouraged the defence to appeal. Perhaps they sense that the judge had some doubt when it came to sentencing, and are trying to exploit that.

Application for leave is, broadly speaking, a guaranteed payday for solicitors...albeit a lot less than it used to be.

I wouldn't read too much into the decision to apply.

[Tornadoes70]

Fair enough. But a jury, and a judge and fhe procurator fiscal all seem to think one thing, and you, some random punter on an internet message board who may/may not have any expertise in fhe criminal justice system, legal process or any ofnthe facts of the case, thinks another.

I don't really wish to debate this extremely sensitive matter for the family concerned for too much longer and I've made it clear I think four years for ending a person's life albeit not a murder charge is not long enough. However, I do think your comments regarding some random punter on an internet message board is a crass comment as what does that make you if not another as you call me some random punter on an internet message board? Why should anyone take any notice of what you say according to your thinking? In any case Juries and Procurator Fiscals would not have been involved in the sentencing aspect and sometimes judges get it wrong or are members of the public not allowed to form their own opinions according to you who appears to blindly accept whatever the authorities say or do as always being right.

[silverhibee]

He's presumably in Polmont too which is possibly safer for him than an adult jail.

Polmont is a YOI so that's where he would go for his age, adult prison at 21.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't really wish to debate this extremely sensitive matter for the family concerned for too much longer and I've made it clear I think four years for ending a person's life albeit not a murder charge is not long enough. However, I do think your comments regarding some random punter on an internet message board is a crass comment as what does that make you if not another as you call me some random punter on an internet message board? Why should anyone take any notice of what you say according to your thinking? In any case Juries and Procurator Fiscals would not have been involved in the sentencing aspect and sometimes judges get it wrong or are members of the public not allowed to form their own opinions according to you who appears to blindly accept whatever the authorities say or do as always being right.

I wasnt having a go at you per se, i consider myself a random punter on the internet too. I was more using it to illustrate that our opinions are based on littls but emotion and an ignorant view of the facts, law and legal process. Thats why i put more stock in a legal process than i do 100,000 'signatures' on a petition.

Apologies mate if you were offended, that wasnt my intention. And i agree, that its probably best to leave it there.

[Tornadoes70]

I wasnt having a go at you per se, i consider myself a random punter on the internet too. I was more using it to illustrate that our opinions are based on littls but emotion and an ignorant view of the facts, law and legal process. Thats why i put more stock in a legal process than i do 100,000 'signatures' on a petition.

Apologies mate if you were offended, that wasnt my intention. And i agree, that its probably best to leave it there.

Fair enough mate. Nice one. :aok:

[Sir David Gray]

Polmont is a YOI so that's where he would go for his age, adult prison at 21.


He's presumably in Polmont too which is possibly safer for him than an adult jail.

Yeah he is in Polmont - just down the road from me. :rolleyes:

[Steve-O]

Trying to look at this objectively, I do wonder if the apparently lenient sentence has encouraged the defence to appeal. Perhaps they sense that the judge had some doubt when it came to sentencing, and are trying to exploit that.

Sorry but this makes zero sense as a theory. Conviction and sentencing are two essentially separate matters. You don’t get a longer sentence if the Judge thinks you’re 100% guilty as opposed to 90%. If you’re guilty, you’re guilty and you’re sentenced according to sentencing guidelines, relevant case law, and judicial discretion based on all of the facts.

[Big L]

Sorry but this makes zero sense as a theory. Conviction and sentencing are two essentially separate matters. You don’t get a longer sentence if the Judge thinks you’re 100% guilty as opposed to 90%. If you’re guilty, you’re guilty and you’re sentenced according to sentencing guidelines, relevant case law, and judicial discretion based on all of the facts.

I'm sure I read that the guidelines for crimes of this nature is 4 - 6 yrs. If that's correct then the judge has been very lenient. One thing is certain, due to the public response, I would be astonished if the defence were able to reduce the sentence. I also think that their appeal is a reaction to the public response for a longer sentence in the hope that the sentence remains the same, if you get my meaning.

[Future17]

I'm sure I read that the guidelines for crimes of this nature is 4 - 6 yrs. If that's correct then the judge has been very lenient. One thing is certain, due to the public response, I would be astonished if the defence were able to reduce the sentence. I also think that their appeal is a reaction to the public response for a longer sentence in the hope that the sentence remains the same, if you get my meaning.

From what I've heard, the appeal is against the conviction, not the sentence.

[Big L]

From what I've heard, the appeal is against the conviction, not the sentence.
My mistake, I tHought they were trying to reduce the sentence.

[Sir David Gray]

Shaun Woodburn's mother has just posted on Facebook that they've lost their case to lodge an appeal against the sentence and the four years imprisonment will stand.

Absolute disgrace.

[Steve-O]

Shaun Woodburn's mother has just posted on Facebook that they've lost their case to lodge an appeal against the sentence and the four years imprisonment will stand.

Absolute disgrace.

I don't think there was a 'case' to lodge an appeal. The Crown Office will have explained to them that such an appeal is unlikely to succeed, presumably because the sentencing decision is not 'wrong' in law as such - i.e. the guidelines have been appropriately followed etc. Judges have to have a certain level of discretion. People bellowing "it's too lenient!!!" is not enough of an argument in a court of law.

[SlatefordHibby]

I don't think there was a 'case' to lodge an appeal. The Crown Office will have explained to them that such an appeal is unlikely to succeed, presumably because the sentencing decision is not 'wrong' in law as such - i.e. the guidelines have been appropriately followed etc. Judges have to have a certain level of discretion. People bellowing "it's too lenient!!!" is not enough of an argument in a court of law.

Then perhaps it's the "guidelines" or the "law" that is wrong.

[calumhibee1]

Then perhaps it's the "guidelines" or the "law" that is wrong.

I certainly don’t disagree with this, however a judge can’t be the one to just decide that the guidelines are wrong and then disregard them. The sentence should have been harsher, no doubt about it, but going by the guidelines I just don’t think there was actually any scope for it.

[Steve-O]

Then perhaps it's the "guidelines" or the "law" that is wrong.

That’s certainly one way of looking at it and a more realistic view than just saying the Judge is wrong and needs to change the sentence.

I see this link confirms the Crown can only appeal a sentence if it is viewed as “unduly lenient”. Of course many are saying that this one is, however I imagine the “unduly” means it is a very high bar to get to, and as noted at the link below, such appeals are rare as a result. It can’t really be any other way as I imagine that the vast majority of victims families would view sentences as lenient and we’d have appeals going in every time if it was easy to do.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2004/12/20339/47562#13

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That’s certainly one way of looking at it and a more realistic view than just saying the Judge is wrong and needs to change the sentence.

I see this link confirms the Crown can only appeal a sentence if it is viewed as “unduly lenient”. Of course many are saying that this one is, however I imagine the “unduly” means it is a very high bar to get to, and as noted at the link below, such appeals are rare as a result. It can’t really be any other way as I imagine that the vast majority of victims families would view sentences as lenient and we’d have appeals going in every time if it was easy to do.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2004/12/20339/47562#13


Thats the nub - there is no sentence that will adeqautely compensate the families of victims of such crimes.

Thr justice system is imperfect, but not as imperfect as trial by social media would be.

[Tornadoes70]

Shaun Woodburn's mother has just posted on Facebook that they've lost their case to lodge an appeal against the sentence and the four years imprisonment will stand.

Absolute disgrace.

I couldn't care less what some folk say regarding 'trial by social media'.

Totally agree with you, its an absolute disgrace.

[cabbageandribs1875]

wow, what a lesson this young thug has learned eh, take someones life and the punishment is basically a 2 year stint behind bars, no doubt the piece of utter s**t will have his name appear in the papers again in a couple of years time :agree:

[silverhibee]

wow, what a lesson this young thug has learned eh, take someones life and the punishment is basically a 2 year stint behind bars, no doubt the piece of utter s**t will have his name appear in the papers again in a couple of years time :agree:

Could be sooner if he was to win his appeal.

[Steve-O]

If it was reviewed and he got 6 years, would anyone be happy with that?

[Scouse Hibee]

If it was reviewed and he got 6 years, would anyone be happy with that?

Happier than they were.

[Sir David Gray]

If it was reviewed and he got 6 years, would anyone be happy with that?

I think happy would be pushing it but certainly more satisfied than a 4 year sentence.

In my mind something like this should carry a sentence of between 8-10 years imprisonment.

Sentencing guidelines or whatever it is really needs to be looked at if it's deemed appropriate for someone to be handed a 4 year prison sentence for attacking someone in an unprovoked attack and then kicking them in the head whilst they are on the ground and they're unconscious.

There's something seriously wrong with a system that allows such a sentence to be handed down.

[silverhibee]

If it was reviewed and he got 6 years, would anyone be happy with that?

I actually thought he would get 5 years and 2 years for the other assaults, the prosecution should never have run it the way they did, one long charge of assaults, it meant the judge sentenced the lad to 4 years for all assaults instead of sentencing him on each charge.

[silverhibee]

I think happy would be pushing it but certainly more satisfied than a 4 year sentence.

In my mind something like this should carry a sentence of between 8-10 years imprisonment.

Sentencing guidelines or whatever it is really needs to be looked at if it's deemed appropriate for someone to be handed a 4 year prison sentence for attacking someone in an unprovoked attack and then kicking them in the head whilst they are on the ground and they're unconscious.

There's something seriously wrong with a system that allows such a sentence to be handed down.

The lad was never found guilty of kicking SW in the head, the cause of death was a punch that knocked him out resulting in him smashing his head of the pavement which was deemed the cause of death.

[Steve-O]

I actually thought he would get 5 years and 2 years for the other assaults, the prosecution should never have run it the way they did, one long charge of assaults, it meant the judge sentenced the lad to 4 years for all assaults instead of sentencing him on each charge.

Isn't it the case that he was sentenced on each charge, but the sentences run concurrently? This is very common - i.e. you are serving all sentences at the same time. That may not perhaps seem right, but that is the way most sentencing occurs worldwide. Off the top of my head it is generally only the Americans who go overboard on cumulative sentencing and they end up with sentences of 300 years etc!

Given all of the assaults occurred in the course of one night, it was never likely to be cumulative in this case.

Also, I haven't been able to find precise details of what happened in this case - did the deceased come out of the pub and fight with the perpetrator?

[Steve-O]

I think happy would be pushing it but certainly more satisfied than a 4 year sentence.

In my mind something like this should carry a sentence of between 8-10 years imprisonment.

Sentencing guidelines or whatever it is really needs to be looked at if it's deemed appropriate for someone to be handed a 4 year prison sentence for attacking someone in an unprovoked attack and then kicking them in the head whilst they are on the ground and they're unconscious.

There's something seriously wrong with a system that allows such a sentence to be handed down.

It is guidelines + case law (i.e. comparison with other similar cases) + Judge's discretion. The case law is important. If there are multiple other culpable homicide cases where it's one of these punch + head hits the ground resulting in death, and the sentences dished out are around that 4 year mark, then a Judge cannot hand out an 8 year sentence (for example) as that leaves the sentence wide open to appeal from the offender. All that his defence counsel would need to do is roll out a variety of prior cases where the sentence had been much lower for similar offending, and the appeal would likely win unless the Crown could prove some extraordinary circumstance why the sentence should be so much higher in this case. Unfortunately a petition does not constitute an argument for that to occur.

The age of the offender I bet will have played a part too. As someone under 18, courts are reluctant to send these people to prison for long stretches, because there is still a chance for them to actually become a useful member of society. Apparently the brain is not fully developed until 25 years old. The longer you send a youth to prison for, the more likely they are to become a hardened criminal and go back to prison time and time again.

I know that some people won't care about that, and of course the victim's family will not, but society in general should prefer a system where someone is actually rehabilitated (at least to an extent) and not costing the taxpayers thousands / millions of pounds by keeping them in prison constantly.

In summary, it appears a light sentence in terms of the consequences of what happened, but I wonder how many people on here have punched someone (under any circumstances)? Imagine that person had, as a result, fallen backwards and hit their head and died? Clearly the intent was not to kill the person. Intent is an important thing in law and when intent cannot be proven (acting like a total fud and starting fights is not the same as intent to kill someone), as it couldn't in this case, then you can't just start dishing out life sentences or the like.

Research also suggests that the deterrent effect of longer sentences is largely mythical too. Given that this guy wasn't out to kill anyone, does anyone believe that the prospect of an 8-10 year sentence for culpable homicide would've deterred him from doing what he actually did that night?

Most actual murders are in the heat of the moment and the resultant sentence of life is clearly no deterrent. People talk about US sentencing being the way to go - even the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent there. Certainly deters that person from murdering again, but does not deter others from doing exactly the same thing.

[Future17]

In summary, it appears a light sentence in terms of the consequences of what happened, but I wonder how many people on here have punched someone (under any circumstances)? Imagine that person had, as a result, fallen backwards and hit their head and died? Clearly the intent was not to kill the person. Intent is an important thing in law and when intent cannot be proven (acting like a total fud and starting fights is not the same as intent to kill someone), as it couldn't in this case, then you can't just start dishing out life sentences or the like.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said, but I think the section of your post I've quoted above would benefit from further discussion in the context of this case.

From what I've read on here in posts where people have explained why the feel the sentence was unduly lenient, the actions of the killer in the hours preceding the fatal attack play a big part. I don't disagree that intent is important in law, but even to be convicted of murder, it does not have to be shown that you intended to kill.

Part of me wonders, if the killer's representatives are successful in their appeal and a retrial is ordered, whether COPFS may decide to proceed with the retrial on a charge of murder. It's very unlikely for a variety of reasons, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

[Sir David Gray]

It is guidelines + case law (i.e. comparison with other similar cases) + Judge's discretion. The case law is important. If there are multiple other culpable homicide cases where it's one of these punch + head hits the ground resulting in death, and the sentences dished out are around that 4 year mark, then a Judge cannot hand out an 8 year sentence (for example) as that leaves the sentence wide open to appeal from the offender. All that his defence counsel would need to do is roll out a variety of prior cases where the sentence had been much lower for similar offending, and the appeal would likely win unless the Crown could prove some extraordinary circumstance why the sentence should be so much higher in this case. Unfortunately a petition does not constitute an argument for that to occur.

The age of the offender I bet will have played a part too. As someone under 18, courts are reluctant to send these people to prison for long stretches, because there is still a chance for them to actually become a useful member of society. Apparently the brain is not fully developed until 25 years old. The longer you send a youth to prison for, the more likely they are to become a hardened criminal and go back to prison time and time again.

I know that some people won't care about that, and of course the victim's family will not, but society in general should prefer a system where someone is actually rehabilitated (at least to an extent) and not costing the taxpayers thousands / millions of pounds by keeping them in prison constantly.

In summary, it appears a light sentence in terms of the consequences of what happened, but I wonder how many people on here have punched someone (under any circumstances)? Imagine that person had, as a result, fallen backwards and hit their head and died? Clearly the intent was not to kill the person. Intent is an important thing in law and when intent cannot be proven (acting like a total fud and starting fights is not the same as intent to kill someone), as it couldn't in this case, then you can't just start dishing out life sentences or the like.

Research also suggests that the deterrent effect of longer sentences is largely mythical too. Given that this guy wasn't out to kill anyone, does anyone believe that the prospect of an 8-10 year sentence for culpable homicide would've deterred him from doing what he actually did that night?

Most actual murders are in the heat of the moment and the resultant sentence of life is clearly no deterrent. People talk about US sentencing being the way to go - even the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent there. Certainly deters that person from murdering again, but does not deter others from doing exactly the same thing.

I understand the part about case law being important and that a defence lawyer would jump all over a hefty sentence being given to their client when similar cases have resulted in far lighter sentences however there should also be an opportunity for politicians and top legal experts to say that sentencing guidelines are getting tougher and that cases need to be dealt with more severely, despite what precedent may have been set with previous sentences.

I think a 4 year prison sentence is far too lenient in cases like this where someone has lost their life, regardless of any previous cases or whether or not there was an intent to kill.

The part about brains not being fully developed until 25, whilst it may be true, it is not something I buy into at all as being a reason to give him a shorter sentence. Someone at 17 years of age knows the possible consequences of punching someone in the head, another 8 years of cognitive development won't have helped him to become a responsible human being.

My main concern is protecting innocent people from dangerous people like this and the only way that can be guaranteed is by having them locked up for a longer period of time.

[Steve-O]

I understand the part about case law being important and that a defence lawyer would jump all over a hefty sentence being given to their client when similar cases have resulted in far lighter sentences however there should also be an opportunity for politicians and top legal experts to say that sentencing guidelines are getting tougher and that cases need to be dealt with more severely, despite what precedent may have been set with previous sentences.

I think a 4 year prison sentence is far too lenient in cases like this where someone has lost their life, regardless of any previous cases or whether or not there was an intent to kill.

The part about brains not being fully developed until 25, whilst it may be true, it is not something I buy into at all as being a reason to give him a shorter sentence. Someone at 17 years of age knows the possible consequences of punching someone in the head, another 8 years of cognitive development won't have helped him to become a responsible human being.

My main concern is protecting innocent people from dangerous people like this and the only way that can be guaranteed is by having them locked up for a longer period of time.

There is actually quite a big difference between a 17 year old and a 25 year old. You can't definitively say someone can't change their ways during a relatively long period like that. I'm not saying the Judge took this into account, I just know there is a reluctance to send young people to prison for the first time because rather than "teaching them a lesson" it is probably more likely to actually send them the other way towards a life of crime...depending what they do there - I am sure some people do never go back.

For sentences to go upwards, a change in the law would be required. So, if you want that, then you can vote for a party who vows to be "tough on crime" at the next election. However, what usually happens is one or two cases that are heavily publicised for one reason or another come up, and the public perception is still that we are "too soft" while having extremely limited knowledge of the system.

[Steve-O]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said, but I think the section of your post I've quoted above would benefit from further discussion in the context of this case.

From what I've read on here in posts where people have explained why the feel the sentence was unduly lenient, the actions of the killer in the hours preceding the fatal attack play a big part. I don't disagree that intent is important in law, but even to be convicted of murder, it does not have to be shown that you intended to kill.

Part of me wonders, if the killer's representatives are successful in their appeal and a retrial is ordered, whether COPFS may decide to proceed with the retrial on a charge of murder. It's very unlikely for a variety of reasons, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

To be convicted of murder, there does have to be proof you intended to kill OR that you showed "reckless disregard" for the life of your victim.

If he successfully appeals there might not necessarily be a retrial. That's one possible outcome. Was he tried for murder in the first place? If not, I don't think they would be able to upgrade the charge, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

I don't think the killer's actions prior to the incident really prove anything, certainly not in terms of what happened to the victim. Yes he was clearly looking for "bother", but again, this is not the same as setting out to kill someone. Given the perpetrator and the victim were unknown to each other until presumably seconds before the fatal blow was struck, getting a murder conviction would seem next to impossible to me in this case.

[Future17]

To be convicted of murder, there does have to be proof you intended to kill OR that you showed "reckless disregard" for the life of your victim.

Exactly. Proving a person acting recklessly without regard to the consequences of their actions is not the same as proving someone intended to kill. I've seen a number of prosecutions (and convictions) based on the former. Anyway, my point is there doesn't need to be intent, which I think we've agreed on.


Was he tried for murder in the first place? If not, I don't think they would be able to upgrade the charge, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

The charge was originally murder, but was reduced to culpable homicide. Counsel would be able to commence a retrial on the charge of murder if that was the accepted recommendation from COPFS. As I said before, it's unlikely, but a whole variety of things may have changed since the original trial by the time any retrial comes around.


I don't think the killer's actions prior to the incident really prove anything, certainly not in terms of what happened to the victim. Yes he was clearly looking for "bother", but again, this is not the same as setting out to kill someone. Given the perpetrator and the victim were unknown to each other until presumably seconds before the fatal blow was struck, getting a murder conviction would seem next to impossible to me in this case.

As stated above, there's no requirement to prove he set out to kill someone. I think the killer's actions leading up to the attack are certainly relevant to whether or not his conduct was wilfully reckless, but my point was that I think that's the opinion of a lot of people on here, which is why they consider the sentence to have been so lenient.

I think your previous posts have been explaining why things are not always black and white in the justice system. I was trying to expand on that and focus on the disconnect between the behaviour of the killer (not just the fatal blow) and the sentence (i.e. the reduced charge), as I think a lot of people are upset between the lack of a direct link between the two.

There will always be bad decisions made during the process as those involved are human and humans make mistakes. There will also always be those who think a conviction or acquittal is wrong, a sentence too short or too long - after all it's also human nature that we view things differently to one another and have differing opinions.

Taking all that into account, our justice system is one of the oldest in the world still being used and because of that, I think it's evolved. It's not simple, it's not straightforward, but deciding a person's guilt or innocence and the fate of the rest of their lives (along with the impact on their family, the victim and the victim's family) shouldn't be simple and straightforward.

[Steve-O]

My main issue is that people can get swept up in hysteria around cases and just aren’t prepared to think about what they’re saying or why the decisions that have been taken have occurred. Mostly it’s just “This is a disgrace!!”, sign an online petition, but make zero effort to actually look into things more closely - i.e. the facts of the case, how the system works etc.

We always here about the supposedly bad decisions, but got every one of those there are probably 10 good ones! Can anyone even name an offender where their sentence was a “disgrace” who has actually come out of prison and reoffended in the same way?

[Tornadoes70]

The bare facts of the case are that the perpetrator proceeded to assault the then unknown to him victim with force and violence ending ultimately in killing the victim. The force and violence was witnessed by others who attested to it during the case.

The force and violence used could have secured a murder charge in my view however intent is a key factor and a murder charge would have been risky due to doubt regarding the element of intention to murder.

Having proven culpable homocide with force and violence being the singular cause of killing the victim the bare facts should have been adequate for a sentence the public would accept as being reasonable.

Was four years the sentence the public deemed reasonable especially given the circumstances of the perpetrator earlier that evening engaging in similar acts of assault and aggression in the hours prior to using force and violence that ultimately ended in him killing?

Four years in my opinion was neither due punishment or a suitable deterrent for other potentially aggressive young persons who might engage in similar acts of violence which end up killing folk.

The family had every right to challenge the sentence with a great number of the public agreeing with them and signing a petition that the sentence was unduly lenient given the force and violence used.

The Judges are there to ensure justice is appropriate and in this case its clear the family and the public at large do not agree it was in this case.

The bare facts of this case should have ensured a lengthier sentence of around six to eight years in my opinion.

[steakbake]

My main issue is that people can get swept up in hysteria around cases and just aren’t prepared to think about what they’re saying or why the decisions that have been taken have occurred. Mostly it’s just “This is a disgrace!!”, sign an online petition, but make zero effort to actually look into things more closely - i.e. the facts of the case, how the system works etc.

We always here about the supposedly bad decisions, but got every one of those there are probably 10 good ones! Can anyone even name an offender where their sentence was a “disgrace” who has actually come out of prison and reoffended in the same way?

A legal friend of mine often said that justice and the application of the law are often separate things.

[EH6 Hibby]

My main issue is that people can get swept up in hysteria around cases and just aren’t prepared to think about what they’re saying or why the decisions that have been taken have occurred. Mostly it’s just “This is a disgrace!!”, sign an online petition, but make zero effort to actually look into things more closely - i.e. the facts of the case, how the system works etc.

We always here about the supposedly bad decisions, but got every one of those there are probably 10 good ones! Can anyone even name an offender where their sentence was a “disgrace” who has actually come out of prison and reoffended in the same way?

I think there are several similarities between Shaun's case and this one.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/simon-san-killer-jailed-for-5-years-1-4520236

I remember people being outraged at the 5 year sentence given for what was a racist attack on a delivery driver.

[Future17]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/family-tragic-shaun-woodburn-touched-11764704

I wouldn't usually post a DR link but haven't seen this reported elsewhere.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

I think there are several similarities between Shaun's case and this one.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/simon-san-killer-jailed-for-5-years-1-4520236

I remember people being outraged at the 5 year sentence given for what was a racist attack on a delivery driver.

His brother did similar. Although he chose to stab the owner of a Chinese takeaway several times.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/man-jailed-for-devastating-single-punch-attack-on-royal-mile-1-4665143

Victim lives and the offender gets 7years. Our justice system is a horrific mess

[Steve-O]

www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/man-jailed-for-devastating-single-punch-attack-on-royal-mile-1-4665143

Victim lives and the offender gets 7years. Our justice system is a horrific mess

You've missed the point that this offender in the link has FORTY-SIX previous convictions, including for violence, and including previously being imprisoned.

In Mr Woodburn's case, the offender (I think) had no previous convictions and was considerably younger.

Each case is judged on its own merits and circumstances which I think is far from a "horrific mess".

[hibsbollah]

You've missed the point that this offender in the link has FORTY-SIX previous convictions, including for violence, and including previously being imprisoned.

In Mr Woodburn's case, the offender (I think) had no previous convictions and was considerably younger.

Each case is judged on its own merits and circumstances which I think is far from a "horrific mess".

He may not have missed the point. He may believe that the lack of previous convictions does not justify the lenience of the Woodburns killers sentence, which is also my position.

[Smartie]

I could understand the leniency if the Shaun Woodburn incident itself was isolated.

But to my mind, the fact that this incident was at the end of a "rampage" involving inciting several incidents on the one night makes it many times worse.

The age of the offender doesn't matter - when you go on a rampage, the culmination of which is the death of another man, the public needs to be protected by having you off the streets for a very long time.

The offender isn't 8 or 9 - they are old enough to know that what they did was wrong.

[Steve-O]

I could understand the leniency if the Shaun Woodburn incident itself was isolated.

But to my mind, the fact that this incident was at the end of a "rampage" involving inciting several incidents on the one night makes it many times worse.

The age of the offender doesn't matter - when you go on a rampage, the culmination of which is the death of another man, the public needs to be protected by having you off the streets for a very long time.

The offender isn't 8 or 9 - they are old enough to know that what they did was wrong.

Age and previous convictions do matter, in law, when it comes to sentencing. Judges MUST take those things into account or they’re literally not doing their job.

Perhaps the rampage was taken into account as an aggravating factor, I’d have to see the actual notes from sentencing but I don’t think they’re online?

[KingFranck]

I see now the killer has turned 18 he has now been named in all the media

Mohammed Ibnomer

****bag

[Speedy]

I see now the killer has turned 18 he has now been named in all the media

Mohammed Ibnomer

****bag

Saw that this morning. Not sure I see the benefit of naming him.

[Pretty Boy]

I see the guy caught stealing at the MEN last year was sentenced this (or last) week to 4 years in prison as well. As despicable as his actions were are we really to accept it's in the same ballpark as taking a life?

[Steve-O]

I see the guy caught stealing at the MEN last year was sentenced this (or last) week to 4 years in prison as well. As despicable as his actions were are we really to accept it's in the same ballpark as taking a life?

I’m sure there must be more to that one. 4 years for a minor (I think?) theft doesn’t seem right, irrespective of the circumstances.

Edit - Apparently not - I didn’t know the full circumstances of this. Pretty poor stuff. Agree that the same sentence for these offences doesn’t really equate. Can only assume this guy has quite a bit of previous.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/manchester-attack-homeless-hero-jailed-for-theft-from-victims

[Future17]

Age and previous convictions do matter, in law, when it comes to sentencing. Judges MUST take those things into account or they’re literally not doing their job.

Perhaps the rampage was taken into account as an aggravating factor, I’d have to see the actual notes from sentencing but I don’t think they’re online?

They wouldn't be published at the time due to the age of the offender and I've never known them to be published retrospectively.

[Steve-O]

They wouldn't be published at the time due to the age of the offender and I've never known them to be published retrospectively.

Unfortunate given they can shut down a lot of the rampant speculation and ideas that Judges just pluck a figure out of thin air based on how they’re feeling on the day!