Jump to content

Stephen Lawrence murder: Dobson and Norris found guilty


PauloBarnesi

Recommended Posts

I went and had a read of another website after your post and the judge appears to say “realised that another member of the group might stab Stephen Lawrence with the intention of causing him at least some bodily harm"

I just think legally it's a can of worms and personally I believe it makes the conviction unsound , however guilty they actually may be

joint enterprise was explained or illustrated by someone earlier along the lines of:

if you knowingly drive a bank robber to a bank and sit outside to give him a lift home - you are a bank robber.

if you know he has a gun when he goes in, and there is any chance he's the type that might use it (like say, an armed bank robber), if he kills someone then you are going down for a joint enterprise murder.

If that is a half decent explanation of joint enterprise then I'd also 'guess' that if you run with a pack of scrotes that like violence and the pack attacks, you're going to get a bit of joint enterprise. A JE charge could be avoided by growing a backbone and naming the retarded murderer or describing events as accurately as you can.

Good explanation. Again, it was covered at some length today. If you go out with someone you know to be carrying a knife and have reason to believe they may use it (not definitely intend to use it, or definitely intend to kill), then if they kill someone with it in your presence you can expect to be charged with murder. Because that's what the law says. Seems reasonable to me.

Since the gang in question are reported to have initiation rites consisting of stabbing people, and since their leisure time has been recorded as including practising stabbing motions with real knives while describing how they would like to do this to "niggers", I imagine they may have had some difficulty in refuting the charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good explanation. Again, it was covered at some length today. If you go out with someone you know to be carrying a knife and have reason to believe they may use it (not definitely intend to use it, or definitely intend to kill), then if they kill someone with it in your presence you can expect to be charged with murder. Because that's what the law says. Seems reasonable to me.

The blunt tool of joint enterprise seems to be questioned in a lot of places as to whether it really serves either the purpose of justice or even what it is used as, i.e. a tool to deal with gang crime.

I have some sympathy with the comments of Chris above but backbones are often difficult to discover about oneself at the best of times - when faced with real threats of death to you, your family or your friends, I'd guess it's not that easy to realize that one may have one.

Since the gang in question are reported to have initiation rites consisting of stabbing people, and since their leisure time has been recorded as including practising stabbing motions with real knives while describing how they would like to do this to "niggers", I imagine they may have had some difficulty in refuting the charge.

That's one of the more difficult bits of the prosecution's case to take, for me.

They could be (and possibly are) the nastiest words removed around but that in itself shouldn't make them guilty of something and it also shouldn't mean that they have to refute the charge. The charge should relate to that particular situation and not to a general penchant for being part of (or leaders of) a bunch of violent racists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the more difficult bits of the prosecution's case to take, for me.

They could be (and possibly are) the nastiest words removed around but that in itself shouldn't make them guilty of something and it also shouldn't mean that they have to refute the charge. The charge should relate to that particular situation and not to a general penchant for being part of (or leaders of) a bunch of violent racists.

This

as I said in my first post in this thread with so much at stake I don't believe they were ever going to get a fair trial they were already guilty by media (no doubt helped by the fact that they are nasty pieces of work , guilty as sin etc etc ).... but the problem with the way the case appears to have been handled (to my mind at least) is that they "may" been given an out and a good chance of getting off on appeal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blunt tool of joint enterprise seems to be questioned in a lot of places as to whether it really serves either the purpose of justice or even what it is used as, i.e. a tool to deal with gang crime.

I have some sympathy with the comments of Chris above but backbones are often difficult to discover about oneself at the best of times - when faced with real threats of death to you, your family or your friends, I'd guess it's not that easy to realize that one may have one.

Yes, I agree there are problems with the JE concept. But in a group of several people with one weapon, I'm not sure what alternative charge would be preferable, if the group can all evade the more serious charge by requiring the prosecution prove which of them dealt the blow. I think it's quite reasonable that if you're in a group one of whom commits murder, you knew members of the group were armed and violent and you won't say who did it, then you cop for the charge as well.

Yes, it's unrealistic to expect them to "grow a backbone". Almost by definition, people who run with gangs are likely to be more susceptible to peer pressure and more likely to put the gang above other considerations. The existence of a charge like JE is unlikely to have a deterrent effect in such situations. After the event, in deciding what charges to bring, it seems a reasonable approach.

Since the gang in question are reported to have initiation rites consisting of stabbing people, and since their leisure time has been recorded as including practising stabbing motions with real knives while describing how they would like to do this to "niggers", I imagine they may have had some difficulty in refuting the charge.

That's one of the more difficult bits of the prosecution's case to take, for me.

They could be (and possibly are) the nastiest words removed around but that in itself shouldn't make them guilty of something and it also shouldn't mean that they have to refute the charge. The charge should relate to that particular situation and not to a general penchant for being part of (or leaders of) a bunch of violent racists.

But the charge did relate to that particular situation, specifically the forensic evidence. The relevance of the film of them acting out the stabbing of black people was showing possible motive and establishing character. If there had been no forensic evidence, or if they had been able and willing to explain how Lawrence's hair/blood came to be on their clothes, instead of remaining silent or repeatedly stating no comment despite having been warned that a jury could draw an adverse inference from this, the charge wouldn't have stood up. The charge didn't rely on the film, but the film in the context of the evidence and their refusal to explain it clearly made it harder to sustain a plea of not guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you know he has a gun when he goes in, and there is any chance he's the type that might use it (like say, an armed bank robber), if he kills someone then you are going down for a joint enterprise murder.

Referring to the point you made about Craig & Bentley; the "Let him have it" issue was an entirely tangental argument. Bentley hanged not for anything he said, regardless of the interpretation, but for going on a 'job' with a man toting a gun.... joint enterprise... exactly as you point out above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how many people are calling for Dobson and Norris to give up the others now they have been convicted. Seems every copper, MP and community leader on the radio in the last 48 hours has asked for it. Do they honestly think that is likely to happen? Two people that have been quiet for almost 19 years would now decide to become the most famous grasses in the prison system, a place where they have to spend at least the next 15 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you know he has a gun when he goes in, and there is any chance he's the type that might use it (like say, an armed bank robber), if he kills someone then you are going down for a joint enterprise murder.

Referring to the point you made about Craig & Bentley; the "Let him have it" issue was an entirely tangental argument. Bentley hanged not for anything he said, regardless of the interpretation, but for going on a 'job' with a man toting a gun.... joint enterprise... exactly as you point out above.

The conviction was overturned because the judge was found to have misdirected the jury. The charge of JE could be brought because he went on the job in the first place. The misdirection lay in not telling the jury that the prosecution should show that Bentley knew Craig had a gun, and also because

...Lord Goddard had failed to raise the question of Bentley's withdrawal from their joint enterprise. This would require the prosecution to prove the absence of any attempt by Bentley to signal to Craig that he wanted Craig to surrender his weapons to the police. Lord Bingham ruled that Bentley's trial had been unfair because the judge had misdirected the jury...

Interestingly, the idea of withdrawal from the JE is suggested by the ambiguous phrase "Let him have it", which both defendants deny Bentley said; the police were found by linguistic analysis to have made up what they claim to be Bentley's statement, so it may be them who introduced this in the first place. Also of interest is that the dead man was killed by a bullet estimated to be of the calibre used that night by police, and which didn't fit Craig's gun. The bullet was apparently not recovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Lord Goddard had failed to raise the question of Bentley's withdrawal from their joint enterprise. This would require the prosecution to prove the absence of any attempt by Bentley to signal to Craig that he wanted Craig to surrender his weapons to the police. Lord Bingham ruled that Bentley's trial had been unfair because the judge had misdirected the jury...

Firstly, the decision by Bingham was the result of New Labour pandering to public opinion... rather as their 2003 (?) legislation was in response to pressure over the Lawrence case.

Secondly, the idea that one can opt in or out of joint enterprise at a moment's notice is pure pap. Bently was caught in the act of commiting a crime and a policeman was killed in the course thereof. For the prosecution to have to prove a negative, notoriously difficult at the best of times, by showing Craig had not opted out of the joint enterprise is frankly ludicrous.

This case would never have become famous had both culprits been hanged; indeed there must have been countless similar examples down the years.

The public sympathy was based on the simple fact that the shooter, aged 16, survived, whilst his not too bright accomplkice hanged.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, the decision by Bingham was the result of New Labour pandering to public opinion... rather as their 2003 (?) legislation was in response to pressure over the Lawrence case.

Secondly, the idea that one can opt in or out of joint enterprise at a moment's notice is pure pap. Bently was caught in the act of commiting a crime and a policeman was killed in the course thereof. For the prosecution to have to prove a negative, notoriously difficult at the best of times, by showing Craig had not opted out of the joint enterprise is frankly ludicrous.

Crazy stuff.

The case was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (established by the last tory government) on the basis of new evidence submitted by the family's lawyers. Both the Commission and the Court of Appeal are independent of government. Your assertion that the conviction was overturned as a result of new labour pandering to public opinion is ludicrous and just plain silly.

Or perhaps you have some basis for saying that the CCRC, the CPS and the Court of Appeal dance to new labour's tune, rather than consider a flagrant and improper misdirection in law?

The prosecution were not asked to prove a negative. The court found that the original judge had misdirected the jury. It's hardly surprising they found that, since the Crown agreed:

He was described as "blatantly prejudiced" against the defendants. Counsel for the Crown agreed with Bentley's lawyers that Lord Goddard had misdirected the jury on the law, had made adverse and prejudicial comments during his summing up, and had wrongly commended the police officers.

And of course someone can opt out of a JE at a moment's notice, just as they can surrender or kill someone at a moment's notice. The point which the jury was not asked to consider, but should have been, was whether the (apparently fictitious) line about "let him have it" meant he was attempting to withdraw his consent. The prosecution were not required to prove that it did not mean this, but the jury should have considered the point. The judge should have explained this, and chose not to. That was found to be part of the misdirection.

These are just facts, a matter of record. You may choose to ignore the facts and pretend it was a new labour stitch-up, but that's not agreeing to disagree, so much as pure fantasy.

To return to the original point, there is nothing in the Lawrence case which is similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peterms, We have become seriously sidetracked here and are wildly off topic. This WILL be my last post on the Bentley matter, so if you wish to have the last word, please feel free.

My final points are these:

1. Just because Bingham says a thing is true, does not make it true. Indeed, if we were to count up all the previous reviews of this case by the various experts, which include Judges, the Home Office and parliament, my guess is there had been at least 4 or 5... and Bingham was the only 'expert' to find in Bentley's favour. Bingham merely picked out few points which he could claim to be supportive of his case and trotted them out. Most significantly, unlike in a courtroom for example, there was no adverserial contest... just a simple tap in.

2. I quote to you from the closing lines of the wiki article on this case, "The English judgment, delivered just over two months after the Labour government took office..." The unstated implication here is clear. The article does not mention the judgment took place the year following Euro 96, or a couple of weeks after my grandfather died... No. It mentions the New Labour government because this was all part and parcel of Blair's wish to be seen as modern and compassionate. I can even remember Labour's support for Bentley's sister's campaign... but please don't ask me for chapter & verse... my memory is not that good.

3. Of course I do not think that Blair called Bingham round to No 10 and instructed him as to how he should report. Things don't work like that... at least not quite. However Bingham, being no fool, would have understood very clearly what was expected of him, and how the new landslide government expected his report to conclude...so he duly obliged. Nothing new there!

4. Finally we come to the question of joint enterprise. I categorically refute one can opt out of one's responsibility, whilst the crime in which one was engaged is still in progress. Any such precedent would turn the law into a total farce.

Finally, we should remember, 60 years ago when this murder took place, the public were outraged by the death of policemen... the accepted wisdom, right or wrong, being that British criminals did not carry arms. Goddard gave the public what they expected, in the belief he was sending a message to the criminal and protecting the Bobby on the Beat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion is about the Lawrence case. The sidetracking is your introduction of a false analogy to a case where the judge misdirected the jury in points of law and introduced emotional appeals to the jury to support the police, and where evidence that Bentley had a mental age of 11 was not revealed to the jury though it was known to the prosecution.

There has been no suggestion that the judge in the Lawrence case was anything other than fair. The sentencing reflected the physical age of the defendants at the time of the crime, where Bentley's mental age was arguably a far more relevant consideration. And the points about JE are not comparable.

Rather than discuss the detail of the Bentley case, I am concerned that what you are trying to suggest is that the defendants in the Lawrence case have somehow been unfairly treated, that political pressure is the cause for this, that they should not have been found guilty, and that in any event their sentences were too harsh.

The Bentley case is the smokescreen you used to suggest these points, rather than the focus of discussion of the thread. But since you have raised this smokescreen, it's as well to introduce a gentle breeze to waft it away.

corrected for typo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate both are guilty, and I have been very vehement in advocating this to anybody who would bother to suggest otherwise, but I gather the impression that only one person actually stabbed Stephen Lawrence, but it seems that they will all get similar punishment. Why is this?

I heard something mentioned that "all (or both) of them were 'ready to use' knives" but how do you prove this? I'm all in favour of them being sent down for a long time, but I am confused as to why they are all treated equally. Yes, nobody owned up to the full story clearly, but this gang come from a series of very violent families and surely in this day and age and perhaps a more progressive judicial system than say 20 years ago, they should consider that if any of this gang grass on any of the others, they will probably be killed.

Like I said I'm not really bothered, but it just seems strange that more hasn't seemingly been made about which one actually did it and there has been far more focus on the group than the individual. Like I said, I expect them and hope that they will all be sent down for a very long time, but there should surely be variations in each sentencing.

It's a very difficult path to tread but its more out of curiosity than actually caring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate both are guilty, and I have been very vehement in advocating this to anybody who would bother to suggest otherwise, but I gather the impression that only one person actually stabbed Stephen Lawrence, but it seems that they will all get similar punishment. Why is this?

I heard something mentioned that "all (or both) of them were 'ready to use' knives" but how do you prove this? I'm all in favour of them being sent down for a long time, but I am confused as to why they are all treated equally. Yes, nobody owned up to the full story clearly, but this gang come from a series of very violent families and surely in this day and age and perhaps a more progressive judicial system than say 20 years ago, they should consider that if any of this gang grass on any of the others, they will probably be killed.

Like I said I'm not really bothered, but it just seems strange that more hasn't seemingly been made about which one actually did it and there has been far more focus on the group than the individual. Like I said, I expect them and hope that they will all be sent down for a very long time, but there should surely be variations in each sentencing.

It's a very difficult path to tread but its more out of curiosity than actually caring.

In gang stabbing cases quite often the group would be rounded up and no one would actually admit to being the guy who did the fatal stabbing or which person was responsible for the killing blow. This often meant that no one could be charged with murder even though you have caught the guy who did it.

The law was changed so the whole group could be charged if no one would come forward and explain what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am pissed off that I just wrote a long post which somehow got lost... so to paraphrase:

Without again getting into the detail of the Bentley case, if one looks at the original post it was just intended to make a comparative point about joint enterprise. You are right, the more one delves into such analogies, the greater the differences between the 2 cases, and the less helpful such comparisons become.

You are also right that I am not happy about what has happened to these 2 young men for the following reasons, and I did allude to them earlier:

I am not happy they stood trial twice... a travesty of natural justice.

I am not happy about the forensic evidence... think of the Maguire 7, the Birmingham 6 and more relevantly Barry George.

I am not happy about the national witch hunt.

I am not happy the application of 'joint enterprise' caused them to be treated exactly as if they were the knife wielders.

I am not happy that the very day after they were sentenced, the attorney general wishes to increase their sentences.

I am not happy that in the case of Philip Lawrence, the juvenile, who really did wield the knife, was released after 15 years.

I am not happy that these people will already be in their 50's, and possibly 60's when they are released from prison for something that happened when they were juveniles. What kind of justice is that?

I am not happy they have become scapegoats for what are widely held views amongst a large section of our society. However horrific the consequences of their actions, they saw themselves as some kind of patriotic heroes, and as such their views had the support of their elders in the wider community.

I could not end this post without a word for Stephen Lawrence. It is appalling that a young man with his whole future before him should have his life ended by such mindless thugs. I saw the TV programme which portrayed the suffering of his family. Absolutely dreadful.

However, when subject to the sober consideration one expects from the law, what does it matter that some of the actors in this tragedy were black and others were white? This may be an issue for sociologists, but is not the law perfectly capable of dealing with this matter without pandering to the public's demand for blood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're violent scum and deserve everything that comes to them regardless of whether or not they're guilty of this particular offence. Absolutely no need for there type to remain in society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of that (AJ RImmer) is quite bizarre.

They should have stood trial once, many years ago. That trial should have been carried out with the benefit of the evidence which the police should have obtained, but negligently failed to gather, dealing with the case on about the same level as double parking or shoplifting. Having got away first time becasue the police negligently failed to gather and present the evidence, it is quite right that they should face a new trial when new evidence comes to light.

Had the trial been carried out sooner, these two would be younger when released; but it's inescapable that if you dodge justice for many years and then get caught, you will be older when the past finally catches up with you. Of course a guilty plea and telling the truth about what happened would have meant not just an earlier, but a shorter sentence, but they chose what they chose.

The attorney general does not "wish to increase their sentence", but is responding to a requirement to consider this, having been requested to do so. Again you attribute malign motives to people with a role in the judicial system, without any shred of supporting evidence or argument.

It is true that some other people in that community, in that part of London, are deeply racist, cloak their racism with a veil of so-called patriotism, and see nothing wrong in assaulting black people. Possibly many of them have no regrets that Lawrence died. But the sentences reflect the crime, and neither prosecution nor defence, as far as I know, referenced the racist views of some parts of that community as either an excuse or an aggravating factor. It was about the defendants and what they did.

What does it matter that it was a white on black crime? Well, as the Met themselves now to their credit acknowledge, it mattered because the victim was denied justice, treated differently and less seriously, because of the institutional racism of the Met at that time. At least some things have been made to change in that respect, though it is also fair to say the Met did not come willingly and open-mindedly to this understanding of their deep-seated cultural racism. It was achieved by long and sustained pressure and changes in personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not happy that these people will already be in their 50's, and possibly 60's when they are released from prison for something that happened when they were juveniles. What kind of justice is that?

The sort of justice that they deserve, had they admitted their crimes at the time they would have long been free and forgotten.

They deserve their punishment even if it is delayed.

Now if you had asked what kind of justice it is for Stephen Lawrence now that would have been a good question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not happy that these people will already be in their 50's, and possibly 60's when they are released from prison for something that happened when they were juveniles. What kind of justice is that?

The sort of justice that they deserve, had they admitted their crimes at the time they would have long been free and forgotten.

They deserve their punishment even if it is delayed.

Now if you had asked what kind of justice it is for Stephen Lawrence now that would have been a good question.

It's not though, is it?

We still don't know who plunged the knife into Lawrence, so it's just a case of convicting someone, anyone....

Sure, they are unsavoury individuals, but harbouring views, however nasty, does not make you a murderer.

The only moment that the victim will get justice is if the killer is convicted. There is a percentage chance that has happened, but there is a greater chance that it never will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In gang stabbing cases quite often the group would be rounded up and no one would actually admit to being the guy who did the fatal stabbing or which person was responsible for the killing blow. This often meant that no one could be charged with murder even though you have caught the guy who did it.

The law was changed so the whole group could be charged if no one would come forward and explain what happened.

I was under the impression that joint enterprise was a common law construct from Victorian times rather than some novel statutory thing. The novelty being that it was being used as a tool against gang crime.

It seems to me that the concept is misreperesented in this thread on the basis of it being some kind of result of not giving up the individual whereas it would appear to be about whether someone is jointly liable for the result of the criminal enterprise upon which they (along with others) embark.

Stand to be corrected as that's only my reading of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In gang stabbing cases quite often the group would be rounded up and no one would actually admit to being the guy who did the fatal stabbing or which person was responsible for the killing blow. This often meant that no one could be charged with murder even though you have caught the guy who did it.

The law was changed so the whole group could be charged if no one would come forward and explain what happened.

I was under the impression that joint enterprise was a common law construct from Victorian times rather than some novel statutory thing. The novelty being that it was being used as a tool against gang crime.

It seems to me that the concept is misreperesented in this thread on the basis of it being some kind of result of not giving up the individual whereas it would appear to be about whether someone is jointly liable for the result of the criminal enterprise upon which they (along with others) embark.

Stand to be corrected as that's only my reading of things.

Yes, it's an old law.

You're right that the basis for the charge is being part of a group which commits a crime. It's not a charge levied because you refuse to name the person who actually struck the blow, and it's easy to imagine cases where a group intend to commit a crime, eg a shooting, the shot is fired by one person, and all are liable. Naming the person who pulled the trigger wouldn't be a defence, I imagine.

I think the point about naming the person who did it arises because if you are part of a group and someone does something which you couldn't have foreseen and didn't intend, eg if someone uses a weapon you didn't know they had, your defence will seem to lack credibility if you also refuse to name them. So I see naming someone as a step towards making a defence against joint enterprise, rather than failing to name them being the basis for the charge; the basis for the charge is as you say, being there in the first place.

In the Lawrence case, I expect it would be hard for someone who was part of a gang who act out stabbings and boast about how they would carry them out, to make a credible defence that they never imagined another member might have a knife and might stab someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â