Some three months ago the convicted evil pair of Nathan Matthews and Shauna Hoare, who had violently killed young Becky Watts, had their applications to go to the Court of Appeal refused by an appeal judge, as there was no prospect of an appeal succeeding – and so it has proved, hasn’t it? Notwithstanding that such permission was refused, they were nevertheless still allowed to do it – that’s the madness of due process in English law for you, isn’t it?
Last week though, a full panel of three appeal judges announced that the killers had had their renewed applications and attempts to appeal against either their convictions or sentences again denied. The court decreed that there was no reasonable argument that the convictions were unsafe or that the sentences were manifestly excessive.
This judgement was not in the least unexpected by the legal eagles, who had predicted that the Court of Appeal would not interfere with these convictions nor sentences, but nevertheless the very fact that this matter has now finally concluded, brings a sense of relief all round.
This dragged out process over seven months must have been a continuance of the dark nightmare and prolonging the pain inflicted by murderer Matthews and Hoare on the poor traumatised parents and those affected by Becky’s murder, and all our hearts go out to them in the hope that at least there is some closure now.
It has been exposed in previous posts in this blog about how ineffective the criminal justice system is, not least in the way it allows convicted criminals to lodge appeal after appeal and challenge their prison sentences however spurious or without merit their case, and regardless of inflicting further unbearable torment on victims or families. They have nothing to lose by appealing but can do so with everything to gain, and of course there is no shortage of greasy lawyers willing to take up the time of the courts in peddling hopeless cases at our expense – this will continue until, by appealing both the guilty are risking longer sentences and their legal accomplices in this are paid subject to a ‘no-win-no-fee’ basis, don’t you think?
Without any apology that repeated here below is from an earlier post
The belief from many legal views is that they both got off lightly:
Matthews could have been given ‘whole life’ for murder instead of 33 years, and was given no additional sentence whatsoever for the four other associated major convictions at the trial [kidnap, perverting justice, preventing a burial, and prohibited weapon possession], while Hoare was given sentences for these additional equal convictions [10yrs, 2 yrs, 3 yrs, 3 yrs, and 2 yrs respectively], but to run concurrently with her 17yrs sentence for manslaughter, so she doesn’t serve any extra time at all.
[There will never be any remorse from this grotesque pair of killers so they need to be locked-up and the key thrown-away, don’t you think?]