Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[justsaying]

 Unlike many young people convicted of such crimes of violence, he is unable to attribute his violent behaviour to a deprived background. As your Lordship has observed, the appellant has enjoyed a privileged background with the active support of both of his parents despite their separation.

So I will explain again, there are many people who could attribute violence to a deprived background but Luke was UNABLE to do this because he had enjoyed a "privileged background". You can tell English Lit was not exactly your forte.

[jixy]

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

Was it possible Luke Mitchell feared what the psychiatrist would conclude?

That's not entirely true is it? His school had concerns.

Didn't he refuse to see the psychiatrist!

"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat"

"Left largely to his own devices he became defiant, violent and brooding with an unhealthy fascination with knives, the occult and drugs. He was first brought to the attention of the mental health profession aged just 11, following a fight at King’s Park Primary in Dalkeith. Although the incident was just a minor skirmish with another pupil, Mitchell’s attitude was sufficiently troublesome to warrant a referral to a school psychiatrist. However, there appears to have been little further action taken by the education authorities or his parents to curb his behaviour. When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861

"Left to his own devices - wonder when that was? He cooked the family dinner on weekdays, helped out at his mum's business, went to cadets and the riding stables (where his mum also went) and his dad's at the weekend. Didn't skip school - not a lot of time left for his "own devices" really!

[jixy]

No, this is YOUR interpretation of what the appeal judges concluded.

 

[justsaying]

"Left to his own devices - wonder when that was? He cooked the family dinner on weekdays, helped out at his mum's business, went to cadets and the riding stables (where his mum also went) and his dad's at the weekend. Didn't skip school - not a lot of time left for his "own devices" really!

Of course the newspapers are going to put a prejudicial spin on things, the boring truth would never sell.

[jixy]

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

Was it possible Luke Mitchell feared what the psychiatrist would conclude?

That's not entirely true is it? His school had concerns.

Didn't he refuse to see the psychiatrist!

"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat"

"Left largely to his own devices he became defiant, violent and brooding with an unhealthy fascination with knives, the occult and drugs. He was first brought to the attention of the mental health profession aged just 11, following a fight at King’s Park Primary in Dalkeith. Although the incident was just a minor skirmish with another pupil, Mitchell’s attitude was sufficiently troublesome to warrant a referral to a school psychiatrist. However, there appears to have been little further action taken by the education authorities or his parents to curb his behaviour. When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861

The "sufficiently troublesome attitude" was because Luke objected to being told he should have told a teacher about the other boy hitting him, rather than hitting back. At high school, he wasn't "trying to throttle" someone - he and the other boy were grappling, again after the other boy started the fight

[jixy]

In 4 days he'd produced 20 bottles of urine? Really?

no official confirmation that there was any such number of bottles.  On the 15th July there were 12 bottles taken by the FLO. Who knows the Police could have just come up with that number like they did with a lot of things connected to Luke!

[jixy]

Unlike many young people convicted of such crimes of violence, he is unable to attribute his violent behaviour to a deprived background. As your Lordship has observed, the appellant has enjoyed a privileged background with the active support of both of his parents despite their separation.

So I will explain again, there are many people who could attribute violence to a deprived background but Luke was UNABLE to do this because he had enjoyed a "privileged background". You can tell English Lit was not exactly your forte.

Clear simple and to the point.

[justsaying]

Clear simple and to the point.

It is starting to get as frustrating as the Tabak thread.

[jixy]

I echo your thoughts justsaying

[Nicholas]

Unlike many young people convicted of such crimes of violence, he is unable to attribute his violent behaviour to a deprived background. As your Lordship has observed, the appellant has enjoyed a privileged background with the active support of both of his parents despite their separation.

So I will explain again, there are many people who could attribute violence to a deprived background but Luke was UNABLE to do this because he had enjoyed a "privileged background". You can tell English Lit was not exactly your forte.

 

Because 99% of it is -  I put up a link to an appeal judgment which proves you are wrong about Luke's home life, clearly hanging on hearsay regarding the relationship with his mother and totally diagnosing him yourself when a psychiatrist stated otherwise - what part of that is not the truth? When you are wrong you are wrong, there is no sugar-coating it!

I do not get your point - it was you who was saying things to the contrary which was the reason I pointed that appeal out. It was you who said he had a dysfunctional family life and you who said he had mental issues - your own post above proves you wrong 

You did not get my point so you made one up to suit your agenda 

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

2 February 2011
[26] I regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusion of your Lordship in the chair that this appeal should be allowed and that the punishment part of the sentence should be fixed at 15 years.
[27] While I understand and share your Lordship's obvious concerns about a sentence requiring a young person to spend his youth and the early part of his adult life in custody before he can even apply for parole, such concerns arise in every case in which a teenager commits murder by stabbing his victim and the punishment part of his sentence is fixed at 16 years or more. That, however, is the consequence of the guidance provided to sentencers by the court in HMA v Boyle, at paragraph [16] of its opinion quoted by your Lordship. In that part of its opinion the court recognised concerns about a particular problem associated with knife crime in Scotland and was advocating a punishment part of at least (my emphasis) 16 years in such cases, other than in exceptional circumstances. The court also recognised that the punishment part might be significantly longer depending upon the circumstances of the case. I agree with your Lordship that sentencing guidelines are subject always to the discretion of the sentencing judge. They provide a structure for judicial discretion but should not lead to a mechanistic approach to sentencing. However, the sentencing judge retains a responsibility for determining the appropriate sentence in any case. (HMA v Boyle; HMA v Mackenzie 1990 JC 62; HMA v Graham 2010 HJAC 50). Having said that, it is also desirable and in the public interest, as well as the interest of everyone involved in the sentencing process, that there should be consistency in sentencing.
[28] If the guidelines in HMA v Boyle are followed, the result is likely to be that a punishment part of 16 years is the norm or starting-point for determining the punishment part in all but the most exceptional of cases of murder by stabbing. It is common for such murders to be committed by young people often in the context of what may be described as a "gang culture". I do not consider that the youth of the appellant in this case merits a departure from the starting-point of 16 years. There is no suggestion that he was unaware of the dangers associated with knives, in which he had an interest. Unlike many young people convicted of such crimes of violence, he is unable to attribute his violent behaviour to a deprived background. As your Lordship has observed, the appellant has enjoyed a privileged background with the active support of both of his parents despite their separation. (para [9]).
[29] He does not suffer from mental disorder and there was no evidence of emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder. (para [12]). In all the circumstances it is appropriate to take 16 years as a starting point.
[30] The question then becomes whether 16 years is the appropriate period or whether the circumstances merit the imposition of a significantly longer period. The circumstances of the murder have been narrated by your Lordship, including the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted upon his 14 year old victim by the appellant (para [5]). It is unnecessary for me to dwell upon them. Suffice it to say that this was a sustained, prolonged and brutal attack upon an innocent young girl involving extensive blunt force injury, mechanical strangulation, multiple cuts and penetrating injuries as well as extensive post mortem mutilation. This clearly merits a significantly longer period as a punishment part than a case of murder involving a single stab wound or even two or three stab wounds. Having considered the nature and extent of the attack and the consequential injuries inflicted upon the deceased before and after death, I am unable to conclude that the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of his discretion when he selected a period of 20 years. The period might well be severe but it cannot be categorised as excessive.
[31] I have also considered your Lordship's analysis of other cases resulting in the conclusion that the sentencing judge erred when he considered that a longer period would have been appropriate in the case of an adult offender. Regrettably I cannot agree. In Walker v HMA the court recognised the difficulty of undertaking a comparative exercise involving cases which had not been the subject of consideration by the appeal court, as well as the general difficulty in comparing the nature and gravity of one case with another. (para. [9]). Fraser v HMA and Al-Megrahi v HMA both fall into the former category. Moreover, in Al-Megrahi there was an outstanding Crown appeal against an alleged unduly lenient sentence when Al-Megrahi was released from custody by the Executive. There is, in my opinion, the additional difficulty associated with a comparative exercise that even in those cases considered by the appeal court taken as comparators, the court was concerned with the question whether a sentence imposed was excessive. That was the case in Cowie v HMA. The court did not specify the range available to the sentencer but merely concluded that the sentence imposed was entirely appropriate to the crime and was not excessive.
[32] Sentencing is not an exact science and in almost every case there will be a range within which the sentencer may exercise his or her discretion in determining the appropriate sentence. For that reason different sentencers may reach a different view but as long as the resulting sentence falls within the appropriate range of discretion it cannot be said to be excessive. If an adult had attacked the 14 year old in this case in the manner described, a much longer period than 20 years would, in my view, have been within the range of discretion available to the sentencing judge. I am reinforced in that view by what appears to be a recent trend of imposing longer periods as punishment parts of life sentences. The most recent example is Smith v HMA 2010 HCJAC 118 in which the court concluded that a punishment part of 32 years, restricted from 35 years to reflect an early plea of guilty, was not excessive. Although that case involved the murder of two people, one of whom was a child, nevertheless it confirms that in some cases a period in excess of 30 years is an appropriate period for a punishment part. While I do not consider that such cases will or should be confined to multiple murders, it is not possible or appropriate to enumerate all the circumstances in which such a sentence may be appropriate. Suffice it to say that the determination of the appropriate period will depend upon a variety of factors, one of which will be the nature, circumstances and severity of the attack resulting in the death of the victim.
[33] In all the circumstances I would refuse this appeal
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[34] I too regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusion of your Lordship in the chair that this appeal should be allowed and that the punishment part should be fixed at 15 years.
[35] Reference has been made by your Lordship to the guidance provided to sentencers by the court in HMA v Boyle. That Full Bench decision establishes (para [16]) that other than in exceptional circumstances, a punishment part of at least sixteen years, and possibly significant longer, might be expected for murders committed by the use of a knife. The court observed that at the present time knife crime is a scourge in the Scottish community. It is of course a regrettable fact of daily life in our criminal courts that much of that knife crime is committed by young offenders.
[36] Your Lordship has analysed other cases and come to the conclusion that had the present case involved an adult offender, the punishment part would not have been more than 20 years. I regret I cannot agree. The suggestion that 30 years is to be seen as a virtual maximum punishment part is now specifically disapproved (para [13] of Boyle). An appeal against a punishment period of 32 years, restricted from 35 years for the early plea, for the double murder of a mother and her daughter has since been refused by the court in the case of Smith v HMA 2010 HCJAC 118.
[37] Every case of murder is distinguished by its own particular facts and circumstances. It is extremely difficult to compare in any meaningful way the circumstances and gravity of one case with those of another. There can be no doubt that the sentencing judge was correct to regard this as a very serious crime. It involved the repeated use of a knife and a sustained and brutal attack on a trusting and defenceless fourteen year old girl who suffered a horrible death and whose body was thereafter extensively mutilated. I do not consider that he can be said to have erred in considering that a longer period would have been appropriate for this crime had it been committed by an adult offender.
[38] I too understand and share your Lordship's concerns about the imposition of a sentence requiring a young person to remain in custody without prospect of release for a very long period. Nevertheless, having regard to the guidance provided by the court in Boyle and the grave nature of this crime, I find I am unable to conclude that the punishment period chosen was outwith the reasonable range available to the sentencing judge.
[39] In all the circumstances I too would refuse the appeal

The judgement states "there was no evidence - doesn't mean there wasn't any!

[jixy]

getting a bit bored of the huge repost when there really isnt any point to them

[justsaying]

You did not get my point so you made one up to suit your agenda 

No Stephanie, you were wrong again and could not accept it. Why don't you ask someone else if they understand the judgment? It makes perfect sense - ask yourself this, why would they say he enjoyed a privileged life in the same paragraph and also in earlier paragraphs? No-where in that judgment does it say otherwise!

Keep trying!

[justsaying]

The judgement states "there was no evidence - doesn't mean there wasn't any!

   You are relentless, the reports all stated he had a normal life Stephanie, stop cherry-picking!

[Nicholas]

No Stephanie, you were wrong again and could not accept it. Why don't you ask someone else if they understand the judgment? It makes perfect sense - ask yourself this, why would they say he enjoyed a privileged life in the same paragraph and also in earlier paragraphs? No-where in that judgment does it say otherwise!

Keep trying!

I've never discussed anything to do with Luke Mitchell having had or not had a privileged life!

[Nicholas]

  You are relentless, the reports all stated he had a normal life Stephanie, stop cherry-picking!