Why? He is unlikely to be deported until his sentence finished anyway so why keep him any longer than needed?
I agree. I also think if someone is not a British citizen their own country should be charged for their prison and court costs.
Why? He is unlikely to be deported until his sentence finished anyway so why keep him any longer than needed?
Well, this is quite difficult to qualify and quantify. He was paying his taxes in the UK as a resident. Just because he is a national of another country, happened to be born in Poland for example, does not mean that for a crime committed in his country of residence and work the country where he was born in should pay for his prison and court costs.jmoI agree. I also think if someone is not a British citizen their own country should be charged for their prison and court costs.
Why? He is unlikely to be deported until his sentence finished anyway so why keep him any longer than needed?
I have no doubt on release he will offend again. I'm hoping that he won't be released after the 27 year minimum term as I think he'll still be a danger.If he stays in the UK he will no doubt be subject to parole terms and sex offenders register. If he gets deported back to Poland will the same conditions apply? Or will he be free to commit the same offences and possible murder some other poor girl??
I think there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict BARD. CPS would not have gone for murder if there wasn't. His trial was scrupulously fair even down to a barrister specialising in defending sex offenders. I can't see grounds for appeal reallyI came late to tragic case of Libby and last weeks trial of PR. I spent much of yesterday reading through the 'live' court reports from Hull live to get a feel for the evidential material and the strength of the case against PR on each count.
Whilst I was relieved that PR was found guilty on both counts, if I had been on the jury I would have struggled with his guilt for the murder based on the lack of conclusive post mortem evidence reported. For me it was not shown beyond all reasonable doubt that PR's actions caused serious physical harm or death to Libby or that there was evidence of the intent to do so.
In terms of an appeal, I noted that the reported directions to the jury by the judge did not specify and explain the burden of proof required for conviction as being 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. It may be than an appeal against conviction for murder is based upon mis-direction by the judge in not making this requirement clear. I have no idea if such an omission would be sufficient for such an appeal.
I would agree with that. To be denied any meaningful human interaction is a form of mental torture. I would add the caveat though. We do not know the real situation or how Maudsley presents.
I came late to tragic case of Libby and last weeks trial of PR. I spent much of yesterday reading through the 'live' court reports from Hull live to get a feel for the evidential material and the strength of the case against PR on each count.
Whilst I was relieved that PR was found guilty on both counts, if I had been on the jury I would have struggled with his guilt for the murder based on the lack of conclusive post mortem evidence reported. For me it was not shown beyond all reasonable doubt that PR's actions caused serious physical harm or death to Libby or that there was evidence of the intent to do so.
In terms of an appeal, I noted that the reported directions to the jury by the judge did not specify and explain the burden of proof required for conviction as being 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. It may be than an appeal against conviction for murder is based upon mis-direction by the judge in not making this requirement clear. I have no idea if such an omission would be sufficient for such an appeal.
Judges have been instructed to stop using the BARD direction as juries couldn’t grasp whether that meant 51% or 100% sure.
I’ve not read back to the Judge’s directions but I’m pretty sure she used the “so that you are satisfied you are sure” phrase which was one of the recommended alternatives if I recall correctly.
It says "considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity" and then "highly unlikely he will serve any of his sentence back in Poland". So I hope that doesn't mean he'll be deported early and then released in Poland.Why? He is unlikely to be deported until his sentence finished anyway so why keep him any longer than needed?
It says "considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity" and then "highly unlikely he will serve any of his sentence back in Poland". So I hope that doesn't mean he'll be deported early and then released in Poland.
Judges have been instructed to stop using the BARD direction as juries couldn’t grasp whether that meant 51% or 100% sure.
I’ve not read back to the Judge’s directions but I’m pretty sure she used the “so that you are satisfied you are sure” phrase which was one of the recommended alternatives if I recall correctly.
In terms of an appeal, I noted that the reported directions to the jury by the judge did not specify and explain the burden of proof required for conviction as being 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. It may be than an appeal against conviction for murder is based upon mis-direction by the judge in not making this requirement clear. I have no idea if such an omission would be sufficient for such an appeal.
Apologies if this is already on here but not had time to read back.
The Oak road video/s released.
The crucial CCTV footage that unveiled killer Pawel Relowicz
It says "considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity" and then "highly unlikely he will serve any of his sentence back in Poland". So I hope that doesn't mean he'll be deported early and then released in Poland.
It says "considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity" and then "highly unlikely he will serve any of his sentence back in Poland". So I hope that doesn't mean he'll be deported early and then released in Poland.
Just waiting to see if there's an appeal - probably not against the verdict, but possibly against the sentence. I think PR & his lawyer have 28 days (from 12th Feb) to decide.Think this thread might be done (sad face).
Libby got some sort of justice (smiley face)
Goodbye all xx