Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.
Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.
When he was sentenced in 1981, everyone probably thought 30 years was a long way off.Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.
The point of his legal appeal is that it is a breach of human rights to have politicians set sentences (as has happened in his case). That should be the role of the courts.He'll never be let out. If you're the party in power, it's like sticking one nail in your coffin with one decision.
This piece of legislation is by far and away the biggest cause of social problems in this country!
The principle has already been agreed by the politicians. They just haven't applied it in Sutcliffe's case - because he's banged up in a secure hospital.No, because the courts COULD set his sentence as 60 years, in which case he'll be dead by the time it's up. Unlikely, but they could. What I don't see is how one man, Peter Sutcliffe, can win a case like this on his own. Is he really able to force politicians to hand such power back to the courts?
Peter Sutcliffe is set to launch an appeal against his sentence. Sutcliffe hopes to use human rights legistaltion in a bid to have the lenght of his sentenced fixed. At the moment it stands as a minimum of 30 years.
.. a whole-life order would normally be the starting point in any case where two or more murders are committed involving a substantial degree of premeditation, or sexual or sadistic conduct.
Ah right, interesting, I didn't know that.
So I presume he wants to be sent back to prison so that he can, in effect, be given a number of years he has to serve there before release. I'm not exactly a court fan, so what's a likely time frame for him to be given? In 2011, he'll have served the "minimum 30 years," so what is a court likely to do from there?
So who originally sentenced him, a court or the Home Office?
Thanks, Clapham.
I'd quite like to see him released purely to see how long he'd last. I wonder, would it be minutes, hours, or days?!