Zak Carr case: sentence announced.

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Five years.

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED29%20Jan%202007%2011%3A54%3A36%3A807

or

http://tinyurl.com/yoncum

So. How long will he really be behind bars?

And apparently disqualified from driving for seven years

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:13:47 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So. How long will he really be behind bars?

He didn't plead guilty, so as I understand it he will get less time
off than if he had plead guilty.

Quoted message said:

And apparently disqualified from driving for seven years

Such driving bans should start on the day someone leaves closed
prisons.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article <[email hidden]>, David Hansen
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:13:47 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So. How long will he really be behind bars?

He didn't plead guilty, so as I understand it he will get less time
off than if he had plead guilty.

Quoted message said:

And apparently disqualified from driving for seven years

Such driving bans should start on the day someone leaves closed
prisons.

I thought they did.

wafflycat said:

Five years.

....

Quoted message said:

So. How long will he really be behind bars?

Half the sentence is the norm, isn't it?

~PB

More detail here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6309949.stm

Pete Biggs said:

wafflycat said:

Five years.

...

Quoted message said:

So. How long will he really be behind bars?

Half the sentence is the norm, isn't it?

A third is, I think, the minimum.

wafflycat said:

Five years.

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED29%20Jan%202007%2011%3A54%3A36%3A807

or

http://tinyurl.com/yoncum

So. How long will he really be behind bars?

Well, he got a lot more than the driver in the Dun Run tragedy, who was
ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. Is not having enough sleep worse than
that? Obviously.

Zog The Undeniable said:

wafflycat said:

Five years.

Quoted message said:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&catego...

Quoted message said:

or

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/yoncum

Quoted message said:

So. How long will he really be behind bars?Well, he got a lot more than the driver in the Dun Run tragedy, who was

ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. Is not having enough sleep worse than
that? Obviously.

Mr Carrs parents, his father in particular have been generous
toward Donald Pearce. They must be very strong people, I admire them
but my own view is the polar opposite.
I was expecting a community sentence in light of our full jails,
I will admit to being surprised that Mr Pearce has been sent down at
all. Had it been one of my own then I do not think I would be
satisfied. Zaks father is not a vengeful man, I certainly am. Two
years served and a driving ban seems small payment for taking a life.
The lack of headlines for the sentence is as poor as the justice
meated out, the motoring public needs to know of severe punishment for
negligent behaviour while in charge (?) of a vehicle.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:44:16 -0000, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, David Hansen
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:13:47 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

> So. How long will he really be behind bars?

He didn't plead guilty, so as I understand it he will get less time
off than if he had plead guilty.

Quoted message said:

And apparently disqualified from driving for seven years

Such driving bans should start on the day someone leaves closed
prisons.

I thought they did.

No it's seven years disqualfication from date of sentence and then he
will have to take an extended retest before he gets his licence back.
Apart from the theory and hazard perception parts of the test, the
practicla part is longer and has to be passed to a higher standard
than the normal test.

He will serve at least 30 months (half sentence) in jail at which
point he can apply for parole. If that isn't granted he will be
released on licence after 40 months (2/3rds of the sentence).

A guilty plea gets you a shorter sentence in total i.e. the judge says
for example 3 years not 5, not a reduction in the time to be served
from the sentence pronounced.

Nigel
replace SPAMHATER with n and t*sc*li with totalise

Quoted message said:

He will serve at least 30 months (half sentence) in jail at which
point he can apply for parole. If that isn't granted he will be
released on licence after 40 months (2/3rds of the sentence).

A guilty plea gets you a shorter sentence in total i.e. the judge says
for example 3 years not 5, not a reduction in the time to be served
from the sentence pronounced.

AIUI A plea of not guilty, and maintaining the claim at a parole hearing
reduces the chances of getting parole. Showing remorse increases the
chances.

So a guilty plea can reduce the time served for a specific sentence given.

Martin.

Martin Dann said:

Quoted message said:

He will serve at least 30 months (half sentence) in jail at which
point he can apply for parole. If that isn't granted he will be
released on licence after 40 months (2/3rds of the sentence).

A guilty plea gets you a shorter sentence in total i.e. the judge says
for example 3 years not 5, not a reduction in the time to be served
from the sentence pronounced.

AIUI A plea of not guilty, and maintaining the claim at a parole hearing
reduces the chances of getting parole. Showing remorse increases the
chances.

So a guilty plea can reduce the time served for a specific sentence given.

No you're confusing total sentence with applying for parole. You are
correct that showing remorse is something that the Parole Board take
into account, but a person who pleaded guilty can still show no
remorse and a person who pleaded not guilty and was convicted after a
trial can subsequently show remorse.

A guilty plea isn't necessarily because an offender is admitting that
they were in the wrong but also because it's possible that the
evidence against them was so overwhelming that pleading not guilty was
hopeless.

As someone who works in criminal justice and has attended parole
hearings believe me when I say that it's not the existence of the
guilty plea that carries any weight but when the offender started to
show some feelings for the victims of their crimes and even then it
doesn't carry a lot of weight.

Nigel
replace SPAMHATER with n and t*sc*li with totalise

Quoted message said:

hearings believe me when I say that it's not the existence of the
guilty plea that carries any weight but when the offender started to
show some feelings for the victims of their crimes and even then it

But, if it really was a crime the convicted didn't commit, and
they continue to maintain they did not commit that crime...

It is not possible to show remorse for the consequences of something
you claim you did not do. So, continuing to maintain innocence (ie,
not guilt) results in ineligibility for parole.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

hearings believe me when I say that it's not the existence of the
guilty plea that carries any weight but when the offender started to
show some feelings for the victims of their crimes and even then it

But, if it really was a crime the convicted didn't commit, and
they continue to maintain they did not commit that crime...

It is not possible to show remorse for the consequences of something
you claim you did not do. So, continuing to maintain innocence (ie,
not guilt) results in ineligibility for parole.

correct that's why there are some very long term prisoners. Because
they still maintain their innocence and are appealing the verdicts
they are not being considered for parole

Nigel
replace SPAMHATER with n and t*sc*li with totalise

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

hearings believe me when I say that it's not the existence of the
guilty plea that carries any weight but when the offender started to
show some feelings for the victims of their crimes and even then it

But, if it really was a crime the convicted didn't commit, and
they continue to maintain they did not commit that crime...

It is not possible to show remorse for the consequences of something
you claim you did not do. So, continuing to maintain innocence (ie,
not guilt) results in ineligibility for parole.

correct that's why there are some very long term prisoners. Because
they still maintain their innocence and are appealing the verdicts
they are not being considered for parole

So, back to the previous postings:

If you continue to maintain that you are not guilty, you are likely to
serve a longer sentence in prison than if you admit to guilt (since
the principal avenue for early release is not available to you).

Which you disagreed with, but now seem to be agreeing with.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:26:31 +0000 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

when the offender started to
show some feelings for the victims of their crimes and even then it
doesn't carry a lot of weight.

The problem with this attitude is that it arrogantly assumes that
the "system" is always correct, which we know it is not.

Expecting people to lie in order to get out of prison which they
shouldn't be in is not the action of civilised society. Neither does
expecting such lies provide a good example to others.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Five years.

Quoted message said:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&catego....

Quoted message said:

or

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/yoncum

Quoted message said:

So. How long will he really be behind bars?

And apparently disqualified from driving for seven years

I suppose we should bear in mind that Judges are being reminded of
prison overcrowding.

David

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:26:31 +0000 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

when the offender started to
show some feelings for the victims of their crimes and even then it
doesn't carry a lot of weight.

The problem with this attitude is that it arrogantly assumes that
the "system" is always correct, which we know it is not.

Expecting people to lie in order to get out of prison which they
shouldn't be in is not the action of civilised society. Neither does
expecting such lies provide a good example to others.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

At least out legal system with its flaws is better that what they have
in China. There, if you are arrested you are guilty because the police
are never wrong. A Chinese court case is only for you to admit your
guilt and show remorse in order to receive a reduced sentence.

David

On 1 Feb 2007 02:59:26 -0800 someone who may be "David Lloyd"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Expecting people to lie in order to get out of prison which they
shouldn't be in is not the action of civilised society. Neither does
expecting such lies provide a good example to others.

At least out legal system with its flaws is better that what they have
in China.

China is not a civilised society either.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ian Smith said:

So, back to the previous postings:

If you continue to maintain that you are not guilty, you are likely to
serve a longer sentence in prison than if you admit to guilt (since
the principal avenue for early release is not available to you).

Which you disagreed with, but now seem to be agreeing with.

Let's start again

If you plead guilty the judge is obliged to give you a shorter
sentence than that they would impose if you are convicted having
pleaded not guilty. (The currentmaximum discount is 30%)

If the sentence is 4 years or longer then you will be released on
licence having served 2/3rds of the sentence. There is no if or but
about this.

After you have served 1/2 the sentence you can apply to the parole
board to be released earlier. This is discretionary and totally in
the remit of the parole board, it has nothing to do with the court.

Regardless of whether you pleaded guilty or were convicted, if you do
not admit to the parole baord that yes you were guilty, yes you
understand the gravity of what you did, etc, etc then your parole
application will fail and you wil have to wait until the 2/3rd marker
to get released.

This assumes the sentence was a determinate sentence i.e of a fixed
duration. The important thing to note is that the guiltly/not guilty
plea effects the total length of the sentence imposed, not what
periods can be deducted once the sentence is being served which I
beleive was you original understanding.

The long stretches come in when the sentence is indeterminate or life.
In these cases then the court sets a minimum period which must be
served before you can even apply for parole. Until you can convince
the parole board to let you out then you stay inside. Hence if you
continue to deny your guilt because you are still trying to get the
conviction overturned then all your applications to the parole board
are going to fail and you will stay inside. (I think the longest
serving prisoner in the UK currently has been caught by this one and
has been in prison since 1967 because he maintains he is innocent so
why should he say that he is guilty to the parole board)

Nigel
replace SPAMHATER with n and t*sc*li with totalise