Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

So do you suggest we don’t imprison people convicted of murder (which is mandatory) or ‘serious drug-related crime’?

I have no doubt the judge followed the correct guidelines. That is their job.

But it is legitimate to ask what the purpose of this sentence is.

I have a young adopted relative who has been in prison for several years for a serious drug-induced crime. Whilst there she has been the victim of intimidation and demanding money with menaces (the prison suggest her parents pay these to stop her getting further beaten up - unbelievable), has become further addicted (the drugs are freely available in every prison she has been in), has been out on licence and received no support so finished up back in prison ...... nothing that has been on offer has in any way provided rehabilitation or a way of her escaping from this miserable life. Add in that she is know to be on the autistic spectrum and has brain damage from drug trauma in utero but received no treatment as a child (and believe me we tried very hard to get this!) The best we can offer her as a society is to be locked up with thugs and drug pushers. That'll do it then .........

PM will be in this environment for a number of years and will come out addicted and traumatised. Whose interests does that serve?

If you read the judge’s sentencing remarks you will see his starting point was 9 years. The aggravating factors increased the sentence to 14 years. He then took mitigating factors into account to bring it down to 12.

I read that the sentence is 14 years but she may be released after 12 years .

4:05pm
Pre-meditated killing
Calling Paris Mayo a 'pathetic 15-year-old girl, the judge says there was some degree of pre-meditated killing.

Her sentence is therefore increased to 14 years

Hereford Times

Not at all. They have to show they have followed sentencing guidelines and made proper provision for aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In his sentencing this judge showed this very clearly. In a case of murder there is no alternative to a custodial sentence; a convicted person will only be sent to a secure psychiatric hospital to serve their sentence if there is expert evidence of severe mental illness - this was not the case here.

Of course they were GSM. Judges don't just think of a number do they.

Mitigating as well as aggravating factors were taken into account in determining the sentence. The judge explains this fully.

It’s a shocking case all round, but the twelve years minimum prison sentence is disturbing too.
The purpose of a prison sentence according to the government is:

~First, protection of the public – prison protects the public from the most dangerous and violent individuals.~

~Second, punishment – prison deprives offenders of their liberty and certain freedoms enjoyed by the rest of society and acts as a deterrent. It is not the only sanction available, but it is an important one.~

~And third, rehabilitation – prison provides offenders with the opportunity to reflect on, and take responsibility for, their crimes and prepare them for a law-abiding life when they are released.~

This is a quote from David Gauke Minister for Justice 2018. But it has been an agreed philosophy for many years.

But I fail to see how the punishment serves these purposes in this case.

1. The girl is not a danger to society
2. It is unlikely to act as a deterrent to others as the circumstances, luckily, are very unusual
3. Rehabilitation in our overcrowded prisons is poor and could be better achieved outside the prison system, in the community.

Yes the judge was following sentencing guidelines, although he decided to increase the sentence from nine years to twelve. But surely there were extenuating circumstances in this case. The length of prison sentence seems excessive and counterproductive.

I do not question that the letter of the law was followed, and all proper procedure. I just question the value to this now young adult of placing her in a criminal melting pot for such a long time for a crime she committed when a child. It would be good to think that there might be some alternative that would help her to overcome her obvious problems and guide her into living a decent life.

I agree with this 100%.

Working in a maternity hospital we saw many girls who concealed their pregnancies successfully - a few had no idea how they might have known they were pregnant, including an 11 year old.

Others were terrified of their parents' reactions, particularly within certain cultural groups where a pre-marital pregnancy brought shame on the family. We had cause to hide some girls in fear of their lives.

The desire to hide a pregnancy stems from deep-rooted fears The child in this case will undoubtedly have had good reason to hide her pregnancy.

I do not question that the letter of the law was followed, and all proper procedure. I just question the value to this now young adult of placing her in a criminal melting pot for such a long time for a crime she committed when a child. It would be good to think that there might be some alternative that would help her to overcome her obvious problems and guide her into living a decent life.

foxie48

tbh I am heartened by those who show sympathy and a willingness to try to understand why such a terrible thing could happen. I think it demonstrates the general "goodness" in people. I am still perplexed by PM's failure to try to conceal her baby's body. If the murder had been premeditated, surely she'd have tried to hide the body. I'm still struggling with the idea that a 14 year old girl can hide her pregnancy so successfully. Was this girl so completely invisible to people that no-one noticed, if so what does it say about her upbringing and the people around her? Such a dreadfully sad case. I hope they find a reason to appeal so she gets a second chance.

I was wondering about her mother foxie48 if you knew your 14 year old daughter had some sort of friendship with a boy of a certain nationality, and she asked you what a mixed race baby would look like, wouldn't every one of your instincts be alerted, and wouldn't you have been watching her like a hawk?

tbh I am heartened by those who show sympathy and a willingness to try to understand why such a terrible thing could happen. I think it demonstrates the general "goodness" in people. I am still perplexed by PM's failure to try to conceal her baby's body. If the murder had been premeditated, surely she'd have tried to hide the body. I'm still struggling with the idea that a 14 year old girl can hide her pregnancy so successfully. Was this girl so completely invisible to people that no-one noticed, if so what does it say about her upbringing and the people around her? Such a dreadfully sad case. I hope they find a reason to appeal so she gets a second chance.

Callistemon21

^As so many others have said, we don’t have the benefit of hearing and studying the verdict. Do ‘some posters’ really believe they know more than the jurors and judge? Yes it seems they do.^

I don't but it is obvious that one, possibly two of the jurors who heard all the evidence did not agree with the others for whatever reasons.

It must have been gruelling to be on this jury. Their deliberations are confidential. It’s not surprising that the verdict wasn’t unanimous.
I share Gloryanny’s view that our criminal justice system needs overhaul. I agree, women get a much tougher deal than men in the criminal justice system

As so many others have said, we don’t have the benefit of hearing and studying the verdict. Do ‘some posters’ really believe they know more than the jurors and judge? Yes it seems they do.

I don't but it is obvious that one, possibly two of the jurors who heard all the evidence did not agree with the others for whatever reasons.

I don't believe I know more than anyone. I do believe that the criminal justice system often gets things wrong and that the most common victims of those wrongs are women . I hope there will be an appeal.
I looked up other murders committed by 15 year olds as a comparison, some of them are much more horrific. Most of the perpetrators were given the same sentence as this girl and some even less. Many of them are not named because of their age. Surely the law should at least recognise the difference between stabbing or attacking a stranger and killing a baby just after giving birth.

It’s impossible not to feel a level of sympathy for this young woman. It’s no secret I believe in the uk we send too many people to prison and that our once functional probation service alongside constructive alternatives to prison have been devastated by austerity. Our government’s ideology is to build more prisons rather than develop good alternatives to GMP.

I’ve sprint enough time in the criminal courts to accept this verdict and I accept the sentence is the one the judge gave after considering guidance

As so many others have said, we don’t have the benefit of hearing and studying the verdict. Do ‘some posters’ really believe they know more than the jurors and judge? Yes it seems they do.

Beetlejuice

^What I do know is that the verdict was not unanimous.^

It didn't have to be. A majority verdict is all that was called for. If the judge had wanted a unanimous verdict, he'd have asked for one, but he didn't. And if a majority of jurors had decided that a verdict of infanticide was more appropriate, they'd have given that as their decision. But they didn't do that either. So here we are. Majority verdict for murder. Motion carried. Sentenced.

Well we all know that!!

🤔

Thanks Casdon. There were 12 jurors on the Mayo trial. 5 men, 7 women.

I looked it up. In a Crown Court the following applies

They will be told what the permissible majority is and this will depend on the number of jurors left on the jury:

12 jurors - the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2.

11 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 10-1.

10 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 9-1.

9 jurors - no majority verdict is permitted (so a majority direction could not be given to a jury of 9, or the jury would be instructed that a majority verdict would no longer be permitted once their number reduced to 9).

What I do know is that the verdict was not unanimous.

It didn't have to be. A majority verdict is all that was called for. If the judge had wanted a unanimous verdict, he'd have asked for one, but he didn't. And if a majority of jurors had decided that a verdict of infanticide was more appropriate, they'd have given that as their decision. But they didn't do that either. So here we are. Majority verdict for murder. Motion carried. Sentenced.

In the meantime, you have to accept that you don’t know any more than anybody else, apart from the girl herself, her family, and the judge and jurors - and that your opinion isn’t more valid than anybody else’s either.

We don't, know, but that is all everyone's posts are on here, opinion based on what we do know from reports.

What I do know is that the verdict was not unanimous.

Correct maddy.

I said I would not be engaging further with you Glorianny. I merely made a comment, not addressed to you, on a particular inaccuracy. I don’t wish to engage in your fanciful arguments. Geddit?

Germanshepherdsmum

I will make one comment about Glorianny’s last post she has no idea what a KC is. There is no such thing as a junior KC. No KC is inexperienced. A junior barrister is one who has not yet become a KC, but some juniors are extremely experienced and choose not to take silk.

I was just about to make this point too when I read this post. KC is neither junior nor inexperienced. She was lucky to be defended by a KC. She may not have been. Nonetheless many barristers who are not KC are certainly very experienced but still called junior because that is the correct term for them as I understand it. There can be several juniors and a KC on some cases.

You think whatever you like, but Glorianny I know you would argue blue was yellow.
Nobody is saying that there will not be an appeal in this case. If there is then no doubt all this ground will be gone over again. It’s probably unlikely that there will be additional evidence, but you never know. In the meantime, you have to accept that you don’t know any more than anybody else, apart from the girl herself, her family, and the judge and jurors - and that your opinion isn’t more valid than anybody else’s either.