May 15th, 2008

Some People have no Conscience

Posted in The Job - General by 200

How many times have you heard the phrase "life must mean life"? A fair few, I’d bet. Whilst a life sentencemay be just that in many countries of the world, in the UK you have more chance of being hit on the back of the head by a Zeppelin than getting a real life sentence.

According to some human rights lawyers a life sentence breaches the human rights of offenders! Incredible, you might think. Not so QC Anthony Trollope (how apt that his name is the same as that which he spouts). Trollope is acting for David Beiber, the American who coolly shot dead PC Ian Broadhurst in 2004 during a routine stop check. (He also attempted to murder 2 other officers). He tol the court of appeal that a whole life sentence is a breach of Beiber’s rights saying a term of 30 years should be sufficient. The case is currently adjourned for legal argument.

Meanwhile, one of the UK’s worst serial killers, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, is saying pretty much the same thing.

Acting on his behalf is female lawyer Saimo Chahal – oh the irony, Sutcliffe murdered 13 women in the late 70s – who claims his human rights were breached when a set tariff for his sentence was never set at his conviction in 1981.

Chahal will try to use the European Convention on Human Rights to win Sutcliffe’s release once he has served 30 years in 2011.

Sutcliffe was sentenced to 20 life sentences.

How does Chahal sleep at night? Oh yeah, because she’s a lawyer.

You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. RSS 2.0


  1. NightJack says:

    The case was an ECHR case called Kafkaris v Cyprus


    I agree with the conclusions of the Grand Chamber on all aspects of the case and would only add a few remarks of my own as to the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention in view of the importance of the issue raised.

    I consider that the time has come when the Court should clearly affirm that the imposition of an irreducible life sentence, even on an adult offender, is in principle inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention. What amounts to an “irreducible” sentence for this purpose has been variously explained by the Court as being a sentence for the duration of the life of the offender with no “possibility” or “hope” or “prospect” of release. As is observed in the Court’s judgment, a life sentence is not “irreducible” merely because the possibility of early release is limited nor because, in practice, the sentence may be served in full.

    May 15th, 2008 at 20:15

  2. Plodnomore says:

    As I understand it, Sutcliffe had served 3 years of his 30 years when it was decided he was a loony and sent to Broadmoor. If, as his lawyer tart and he claims, that he is now sane, then he should be returned to a normal prison to complete the rest of his 30 year sentence. Having read about Chahal, she is not interested in justice, she is only intertested in making her name in a very lucrative specialisation of law, thus becoming a legal whore. The way things are going, she’ll be a Cabinet Minister in about 10 to 15 years.

    May 15th, 2008 at 20:40

  3. Marc says:

    Q: What do you call a lawyer shot dead in London?
    A: A start.

    May 15th, 2008 at 23:38

  4. reallifedilbert says:

    if we still had capital punishment we wouldn’t be having this conversation and those leachey solicitor types would be chasing ambulances

    May 16th, 2008 at 12:34

  5. Civ_In_The_City says:

    Cherie Blair specialises in human rights law doesn`t she? The extracts from her book are revealing of the type of mind at work. I wouldn`t let her near a box of safety matches.

    As for Peter Sutcliffe and his lawyer. My take is that the law, as with many many other things in modern life, has been reduced to the level of a nit-picking game to see who can push the limits the most.

    It`s become an excercise in threading the eye of needle while wearing boxing gloves and hanging out the window of a car at 30 miles an hour.

    Common sense says it should be nigh on impossible but there`s something in the human rights legislation that make the impossible not just possible but almost fool-proof.

    If you`re the prosecution (i.e. the police) it`s just about impossible to get a conviction. Having a video of Amy Winehouse snorting coke isn`t enough evidence, she could have been getting off her face and dribbling because of all the self-raising flour she`d shoved up her nose.

    If you`re a human rights defence lawyer, somehow you can keep on hitting the eye of that needle time and time again.

    An it`s very lucrative work being a lawyer, especially new law that`s a bit complex, such as … human rights. You can earn big bucks doing that.

    To really get the cash registers ringing though you need someone on the inside who can influence public opinion, get the police to back you up, keep the BBC on side, or even draft in even more new laws that you can use to get people off. Someone like … a prime minister.

    With that sort of firepower you can hit the really high profile cases, make a name for yourself and an absolute mint on the side.

    Sutcliffe, Hindley, Fred West (o.k. not him – he`s dead), the Krays, Ian Bradie, Ian Huntley, Fritzl?, Mugabe, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann.

    Come one, come all.

    If every time you rolled a dice you got a six you`d take it back to the shop for a replacement wouldn`t you?

    Cherie is hanging onto her dice, she thinks it has magical powers (Carole said so), or works because she`s so talented, and if there was something wrong with it how come she`s making so much money.

    Perhaps she`s leaving her final judgement to the man upstairs as well.

    May 16th, 2008 at 18:05

  6. Clare says:

    Chahal is obviously too young to remember the fear & dread that Sutcliffe created in his time.

    As a schoolgirl in Manchester who became a student in West Yorkshire during his (literal) reign of terror, I remember it all too well. I passed by several of his victims’ bodies sites on my way to school, college, netball, etc and I can still taste the fear.

    He has shown no remorse or compassion for his victims, their families and all the other lives he has blighted – his appeal is based solely on HIS human rights, what about their human rights and the rights of my daughters to live free from fear?

    May 17th, 2008 at 19:28

  7. Rev. Steve Walters says:

    I agree with Sutcliffe’s lawyer, a life sentence equals 30 years is reasonable. Lets see, 20 life sentences times 30 years means he can come out of prison in 600 years, whats wrong with that?

    May 19th, 2008 at 18:33

Leave a comment