Author Topic: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views  (Read 210533 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #885 on: November 13, 2018, 06:18:52 PM »
The jury obviously thought otherwise!

You say that like you are sure juries never get it wrong  @)(++(*

PS It still proves you wrong on the things I pointed out, whether the jury was wrong or not!

jixy

  • Guest
Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #886 on: November 13, 2018, 06:27:09 PM »
No mention of breathing holes in the glass container for said rats nor indeed mention of food or water?

Given Luke Mitchell's propensity to urinate in bottles instead of getting up and using the bathroom; I cannot imagine him taking care of two pet rats in his bedroom, can you?


Just to confirm that rats had as many holes as any rat could wish for. To indicate otherwise is just lies there were never any issues with them or their safety

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #887 on: November 13, 2018, 06:30:35 PM »

Just to confirm that rats had as many holes as any rat could wish for. To indicate otherwise is just lies there were never any issues with them or their safety

Why would an appeal judgment go into detail about any of that anyway? I am sure it would only have been an issue if they were dead, which they were not. If they were dead it more than likely would have stated dead rats, not just rats... Just grasping at irrelevant straws.

jixy

  • Guest
Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #888 on: November 13, 2018, 06:31:40 PM »
Yes just another case of just because it's not mentioned does it imply otherwise

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #889 on: November 13, 2018, 06:32:54 PM »
You say that like you are sure juries never get it wrong  @)(++(*

PS It still proves you wrong on the things I pointed out, whether the jury was wrong or not!

You have a habit of claiming everything I post to be wrong; whether it's true is another matter.





Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #890 on: November 13, 2018, 06:37:14 PM »
You have a habit of claiming everything I post to be wrong; whether it's true is another matter.

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!

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #891 on: November 13, 2018, 07:22:10 PM »
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!

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
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 07:42:45 PM by Stephanie »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #892 on: November 13, 2018, 07:40:44 PM »
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  *%87

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #893 on: November 13, 2018, 07:46:56 PM »
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  *%87

"He is unable to attribute his violent behaviour to a deprived background

Unable
/ʌnˈeɪb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something.
"she was unable to conceal her surprise"
synonyms:   not able, powerless, impotent, not up/equal to, at a loss, inadequate, ineffectual, incompetent, unfit, unfitted, unqualified
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 07:49:31 PM by Stephanie »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #894 on: November 13, 2018, 07:49:49 PM »
"He is unable to attribute his violent behaviour to a deprived background

Unable
/ʌnˈeɪb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something.
"she was unable to conceal her surprise"
synonyms:   not able, powerless, impotent, not up/equal to, at a loss, inadequate, ineffectual, incompetent, unfit, unfitted, unqualified

Because he did not have a deprived background, which that appeal judgment clearly states  @)(++(*

As your Lordship has observed, the appellant has enjoyed a privileged background with the active support of both of his parents despite their separation.

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #895 on: November 13, 2018, 07:54:24 PM »
Let me explain that part for you because you clearly are failing to understand. The appeal courts say he committed the crime, he could not blame his family life for the crime he allegedly committed because he had a privileged background... Making sense now?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #896 on: November 13, 2018, 08:04:46 PM »
Let me explain that part for you because you clearly are failing to understand. The appeal courts say he committed the crime, he could not blame his family life for the crime he allegedly committed because he had a privileged background... Making sense now?

No, this is YOUR interpretation of what the appeal judges concluded.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #897 on: November 13, 2018, 08:08:11 PM »
No, this is your interpretation of what the appeal judges concluded.

It is the correct interpretation, read it again, you are misinterpreting - he could not (was unable to) attribute his violent behaviour to a deprived background - this cannot and does not mean he had a deprived background, especially as in the same paragraph it is stated he had a privileged background... not rocket science!

And this is why he could not blame his family life for the crime he allegedly committed - appeals are best read in there full context rather than cherry-picking.

[9] The appellant has no previous convictions. His parents separated when he was 11 years old. He lived with his mother and his older brother, and spent time with his father at weekends. The reports available to the trial judge suggested that the appellant had a fairly comfortable home life, and had hobbies such as horse-riding and motorcycling. Despite their separation, both parents appear to have taken part in his upbringing. They were united in disapproving of his use of cannabis.

Does not sound like a deprived background to me!

« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 08:13:12 PM by justsaying »

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #898 on: November 13, 2018, 08:13:28 PM »
Let me explain that part for you because you clearly are failing to understand. The appeal courts say he committed the crime, he could not blame his family life for the crime he allegedly committed because he had a privileged background... Making sense now?

You've done it again!  *&^^&

No where does it say he could not

Same as you did here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg489922#msg489922  *&^^&
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #899 on: November 13, 2018, 08:15:22 PM »
You've done it again!  *&^^&

No where does it say he could not

I added emphasis, like dumbed it down, so you could understand!  @)(++(* Those were my words, not the judgments!