Ok, the previous crimes would normally never get mentioned in Court. As you say, it was part of Carr's defence, which is why there was some insight as to Huntley's 'previous'. What most of the media is screaming about is that Humberside police were exceptionally incompetent, and were no where near as thorough as they should have been. If they had checked both surnames that Cambridgeshire police had given them, then apparently the burglary conviction would have come up and he would never have got the job - the theory therefore is that Holly and Jessica would still be alive.
However, given the huge number of 'Ian Huntley did X to me' stories currently littering the tabloids, it would seem that the man was something of a ticking time-bomb, who the authorities in Humberside appeared to have chosen to ignore (on at least one occasion the police didn't even bother to pass their file to the CPS for a decision as to whether to prosecute). It is arguable that by moving to Cambridgeshire, doing what he did and getting caught, he has at least been stopped from abusing an even larger number of young girls.
Oh and Grimbsy Social Services appear to have F**ked up here in a major way as well, although they seem to bve avoiding most of the flak at the moment.
It is interesting (at least if you're a lawyer) to note that the government have been considering for some time lifting the restrictions about referring to previous in Court. Probably this is as a result of cases where someone has been convicted and then it turns out that they had a string of previous, or, more likely because of the people who get aquitted by juries and then are revealed to be 'career criminals'. Juries apparently would be influenced by such information, which is the major problem with the proposal, as it then removes the 'innocent until proven guilty' presumption.
It's also interesting in this case that Huntley's defence was absolute shite. The defence he presented would have been interesting if the jury was made up of 12 lawyers. At the moment lawyers can't do Jury service, so it was 12 'lay people'. The chances of such a jury having an in depth discussion on the legal principles of 'intention' and 'mistake' are slim. If the jury had been lawyers, the decision would have taken even longer, and I have to say, Huntley may have got away with Manslaughter. There's always the possibility of course that his defence knew about the previous and decided to do a poor job (not that that ever happens of course - we always represent our clients as best we can!).
I am told that he will be in solitary for most of his sentence as the prison officers will be concerned that if he gets a good kicking he will either die (which looks bad) or sue them for something.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Good Kicking?
Date: 2003-12-19 12:54 pm (UTC)Ok, the previous crimes would normally never get mentioned in Court. As you say, it was part of Carr's defence, which is why there was some insight as to Huntley's 'previous'.
What most of the media is screaming about is that Humberside police were exceptionally incompetent, and were no where near as thorough as they should have been. If they had checked both surnames that Cambridgeshire police had given them, then apparently the burglary conviction would have come up and he would never have got the job - the theory therefore is that Holly and Jessica would still be alive.
However, given the huge number of 'Ian Huntley did X to me' stories currently littering the tabloids, it would seem that the man was something of a ticking time-bomb, who the authorities in Humberside appeared to have chosen to ignore (on at least one occasion the police didn't even bother to pass their file to the CPS for a decision as to whether to prosecute). It is arguable that by moving to Cambridgeshire, doing what he did and getting caught, he has at least been stopped from abusing an even larger number of young girls.
Oh and Grimbsy Social Services appear to have F**ked up here in a major way as well, although they seem to bve avoiding most of the flak at the moment.
It is interesting (at least if you're a lawyer) to note that the government have been considering for some time lifting the restrictions about referring to previous in Court. Probably this is as a result of cases where someone has been convicted and then it turns out that they had a string of previous, or, more likely because of the people who get aquitted by juries and then are revealed to be 'career criminals'. Juries apparently would be influenced by such information, which is the major problem with the proposal, as it then removes the 'innocent until proven guilty' presumption.
It's also interesting in this case that Huntley's defence was absolute shite. The defence he presented would have been interesting if the jury was made up of 12 lawyers. At the moment lawyers can't do Jury service, so it was 12 'lay people'. The chances of such a jury having an in depth discussion on the legal principles of 'intention' and 'mistake' are slim. If the jury had been lawyers, the decision would have taken even longer, and I have to say, Huntley may have got away with Manslaughter. There's always the possibility of course that his defence knew about the previous and decided to do a poor job (not that that ever happens of course - we always represent our clients as best we can!).
I am told that he will be in solitary for most of his sentence as the prison officers will be concerned that if he gets a good kicking he will either die (which looks bad) or sue them for something.