To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Court should have had courage of convictions
Share this:
From Clifford Wilson.
THE national news media last week reported on the outcome of the trial of a psychotic killer in England who last year, separately brutally killed an elderly lady and a clergyman.
The emphasis in that court sentence and in the national news reports was laid on the fact that the killer would be detained in prison for the remainder of his life, without the chance of parole.
Now compare and contrast that court sentence with the very recent Jersey Royal Court trial of Damian Rzeszowski who, we are told, while in a psychotic rage brutally slaughtered no fewer than six entirely innocent souls but who, following much bungling by our judicial system, will be guaranteed the freedom to once again walk the streets as an entirely free man in just under 20 years. All with the compliments of our flawed judicial system.
It is surely not beyond the realms of possibility that this man could, subsequent to his release back into society, become once again severely depressed, leading to a repeated psychotic state, whereby he embarks once again on an uncontrolled outburst of violent aggression resulting in another mass slaughter of innocent defenceless people. It is after all now an undisputed fact that this man has a predisposition to kill.
We are told that William Bailhache in his former role as Attorney General, wrote to former Senator Wendy Kinnard in either 2005 or 2006 (in her then role as president of the Home Affairs Committee or Home Affairs Minister) to inform her of an identified potential judicial anomaly. That anomaly being that in circumstances where a killer’s plea of manslaughter is accepted, the Royal Court is unable to impose a life sentence with parole because it cannot legally set a minimum period before parole is considered. The alternative being a straight life sentence without parole.
Questions now need to be asked within the States Chamber as to why there appears to be uncertainty as to whether William Bailhache sent his important letter in 2005 or in 2006. It is surely incomprehensible that Mr Bailhache failed to keep a copy of such important correspondence.
Also why is it that Senator Kinnard or her department apparently failed to reply to the Attorney General’s letter and furthermore why is it that no record of the letter now exists, according to Mr Austin-Vautier the Chief Officer of Home Affairs?
Notwithstanding Senator Le Marquand has been quoted last week in the Jersey Evening Post, that the letter had indeed been sent. Finally why, in his position as Attorney General, did Mr Bailhache fail to follow the matter up on not receiving a reply? Having identified a serious failing in the law, it was his absolute duty to seek to pursue the matter to a conclusion, not to leave the matter in the air.
Why, given the particular circumstances of the Rzeszowski killings, the Royal Court felt, as is quoted, that the handing down of a full life sentence without any chance of parole was too severe a sentence, I for one am at a complete loss to understand.
It is my belief that anyone who takes away the lives of six people should be removed from society in perpetuity, whether the killing was carried out while the perpetrator was at the time in a psychotic state or not.
This comedy of errors has led to a very major injustice being dealt upon the surviving members of the families of those six people who were so brutally cut down, as well as creating a potential danger for further loss of life in the future.
The Jersey political establishment is, I believe, constantly concerned as to how Whitehall regards the actions of this particular offshore dependency – such negligence as has been perpetrated in this instance and which has resulted in a clearly ‘unsatisfactory’ sentence being handed down by the Royal Court, will certainly not meet with the commendation of Whitehall or, for that matter, the people of this Island either.
I believe the Royal Court should, in the Rzeszowski case, have had the courage of its convictions in passing down a full life sentence, thereby once and for all removing the risk of a future further calamity and seeing proper justice done.
Related