Dumb and Dumber

The Daily Mail yesterday had a photograph of Adam Carruthers standing in a barn holding two baby owls. I wonder where they'd come from and what he was up to with them? It's illegale t

It's generally illegal to handle wild birds in the UK.

Chocolatelovinggran

Golly MaizieD that was a little unpleasant.
Of course I do not want to ignore the rule of law. My family includes solicitors and barristers.
I wondered merely whether the defence might have been able to suggest to them, in view of the strength of the evidence, that a guilty plea might be better for them- and us.

The implication of your post was that they were so obviously guilty that a trial was a waste of money.

If that wasn’t what you were saying perhaps it could have been phrased better. Indignation, perhaps that this pair of mindless vandals are costing the state so much money?

Regarding the not guilty plea, as I understand it the defence barrister can give advice, even strong advice, on the plea but the defendant is not obliged to take it.

I felt that a trial was ill advised for the defendants also, as it exposed them to further public exposure. A sentencing would have been a shorter event, possibly attracting less media interest.

Entering guilty pleas would have given the judge scope to pass shorter sentences. Their counsel will have explained all this.

Based on media reports about what happened in the immediate aftermath of the felling, it seems the defendants were very much enjoying the viral media coverage. Maybe entering not-guilty pleas is giving them the further thrill of a very public trial or, as I said before, they are going to be blaming one another.

I’ve been watching the BBC series. Expert Witness. When there is more than one perpetrator of a crime, the severity of the sentencing often hinges on who did what and what the chain of events leading to the crime was, something that can be established by forensic specialists.

I can’t see them being found not guilty of the tree felling other than on some unforeseen technicality. The maximum sentence for criminal damage (that does not involve arson) is ten years. They are also charged with damaging Hadrian’s Wall. If found guilty of that too, it would give the judge scope for non-concurrent sentencing.

They are also charged with damaging Hadrian’s Wall. If found guilty of that too, it would give the judge scope for non-concurrent sentencing.
If both crimes are linked any sentences could be concurrent.

Isn't the matter still sub judice? Perhaps we shouldn't discuss it at all until the trial is over.

News from yesterday - the trial continues, both blaming either the other or persons unknown - for whatever reason, there are full reports from the court and people aren't being asked "not to discuss it"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1757x29lvro