P C Harper Verdict

I never told anyone what was said in our jury room or what the cases were about. We were warned and I am law abiding. I think it is OK to comment that I got the feeling some just wanted to get home. There were hundreds of jurors waiting to be chosen. I never spoke to anyone who wanted to be there.

I would have hoped for longer sentences, considering that the time will possibly be almost halved ( for good behaviour).
I would prefer that sentences were exactly as handed down, with extra time to be served for bad behaviour in prison.

I have never forgotten travelling on a bus in London, the route of which passed the Old Bailey. Two women got on and sat behind me and from their conversation it became apparent that they were jury members. They agreed that although they were still in the middle of the trial they intended to find the defendant not guilty as they ‘couldn’t send someone down’. Sadly, this is the mentality you’re dealing with with many of today’s jurors. ☹️

The whole point of juries is that they represent ordinary people - some of whom are bigoted, stupid, ignorant, lazy or just plain unpleasant. They are more likely to give a fair hearing to people who have qualities they share. If all juries were made up of white, middle-class, middle-aged Perfect citizens, it would not be a jury of peers, which is what people are entitled to.

I 've heard so many similar stories about juries, that is questions about the intellectual ability of some jurors, the desire to get it over with so they can go home, the reluctance to convict an alleged perpetrator of rape/domestic abuse/child abuse because 'it will ruin his life".
What's the alternative? We could have professional juries but would that give us a fairer or more balanced outcome? Is it time for juries to be given either verbal or written information relating to the case they consider. Fraud, violence, sexual offences etc?

tickingbird, if it’s ok for an upstanding juror to break the law, then surely other law-breakers deserve leniency? Personally, I think everyone should keep the law all the time. Anyone who doesn’t should answer for their law-breaking.

PC Harper deserved better. As for comments regarding general discussion on jury service - words fail me!

The driver got 16 years, the two passengers 13 years and an accomplice who wasn't in the car got 2? None of them will serve the full term. What price a life? Not a lot, it would seem.

I agree Bluebellwould. With the latest technology and DNA testing, I fail to see how anyone could get it wrong.
There is no guarantee that terrorists/murderers won't commit their crime again once released. What's the point in keeping them ?

Icanhandthemback, I believe it is the offence of contempt of court to discuss what goes on in a jury deliberation room:
www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/j001-eng.pdf

The jury is responsible for the verdicts, and the evidence that they were put under any pressure is negligible. Since none of us were privy to all the evidence and witness statements, I don’t think we are in a position to declare the jury wrong just because we personally belong to the ‘flog-em and hang-em’ brigade.

In terms of the sentences, has anybody actually read the judge’s sentencing remarks? You can find them here:
www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-long-bowers-and-cole/

icanhandthemback I totally agree with you re juries. I did jury service two years ago. Both juries I served on seemed to want to rush it through and get home.

I can only think that anybody who believes in the jury system has never been a jury member. It is a joke. I was on two juries and each time it was a struggle to get people to understand that their decisions had to be based on the evidence before them. Half the people had made their mind up before the full evidence was even heard. The men were reluctant to convict a man on a child abuse charge despite overwhelming evidence because it would ruin his life! On a drugs charge where there was a gun found in the toy box in the search, there were jurors disbelieving that it could have been possible because "who would do that with a child about?" When the trial finished on the Friday of the fortnight's jury service, some of the jury members changed their minds about which way to vote because they didn't want to come back next week. I was absolutely gob-smacked. Without any evidence whatsoever, there was discussion that police might have planted stuff, women might have made stuff up (all women who had never met, came forward independently because their child had been abused, etc) and various other issues which made you wonder whether the intellect was there for those being asked to judge.
I strongly believe that these boys should be retried as there was obviously a problem with at least one juror who was disqualified but by the time the jury were making up their minds about the evidence, much discussion would have taken place and she could have influenced some of them. Are they guilty of murder? How can any of us who weren't there be capable of saying. It may look like it from the demeanour of these unpleasant specimens but without seeing all the evidence how do we know if it was murder beyond all reasonable doubt!

I’ve signed it. Bring back the death penalty for killing people in uniform and really harsh sentences for those who attack firemen, ambulance personnel and hospital staff. My daughter in law was stabbed when she worked in A/E. she recovered fortunately.

There is a petition on Change.org
Justice for PC Harper maybe more people should sign it?

I wish they had received longer sentences for this horrific crime. Andrew Harper was a lovely, kind and decent man who did everything he could to help people. My heart breaks for his wife, extended family, friends and colleagues.

It is unlikely they will serve their full sentences and be out to commit more crimes.

They showed no remorse for killing the police officer so they will not be too bothered about killing again if anyone gets in their way.

They will probably be treated as heroes by the other prison inmates, for taking the life of a policeman.

The problem with the sentence is it is not a deterrent to go out and do exactly as such people want to again and again. The news hardly shocks me any more but this did. I was able to stop listening. The poor policeman and his family and everyone out there trying to make a difference- words fail me.

The result is not a deterrent but a badge of honour for such criminals -sad sad world

Henry Long sentenced to sixteen years, Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers. sentenced to thirteen years each.
One hopes they will serve their sentences in full, but unless the law is changed drastically, it is highly unlikely.

How have we reached this situation?

Heartfelt sympathy for the widow.

I’m not at all surprised that jurors were intimidated, wether that made any difference to the verdict is doubtful. The laughing by the men at the trial is exactly what I would expect given their background, jail is no deterrent, it’s all part of their way of life. They will serve a few years and do exactly the same when they are released.
This low level theiving is dangerous now because they are usually high on drugs, confronting them in the way that PC Harper did is high risk. There have been many cases were property owners have been driven over by thieves making an escape.

Grandad1943 What you say is true, however, in his/her summing up the Judge would have given the jurors guidance - which would influence their verdict. As previously stated in order to reach a verdict of murder it has to be proven that the suspects intended death to take place. In this case I don't think it was "intended" but I do think their actions were such that they were reckless as to whether death occurred. I hope they spend a very long time in prison with no early release.

Justice is in Britain is in the hands of those who are selected to serve as the Jurors in trials such as the one under discussion in this thread.

Those Jurors heard all the evidence and concluded that murder was not a suitable verdict and those persons and that verdict should be respected.

Only if there is clear evidence that the jury members were under any credible threat at any time prior too or during the trial would there be any case for a retrial in my view.

The chilling thing is this trio have got away with murder and smirked about it. This family were known to the police but the law enabled them. These policemen and women put their lives on the line all the time but the criminals getaway with murder. When will the pendulum swing in favour of justice. My heart could break thinking of his wife and family, I don't think. I could carry on. They shouldn't ever see the light of day.

If anybody here follows twitter, there’s an explanation here which explains the issues arising from the request for a retrial:
twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1288451764786728960?s=21