I would rant right now, but I'm too mad so i'm going to have to sit down for a while
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143248.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143248.stm
At a hearing, Mark Wall QC, challenging the safety of the manslaughter convictions, argued that it could not be established
which of the allegedly "unlawful or dangerous" actions, if any of them, had contributed to Mr Norton's heart attack.
BBC News said:Five boys aged 12 to 14 who were jailed for two years each for killing a man as he played cricket have had their manslaughter convictions overturned.
I was just about to start a thread on this.
Right so it wasn't the throwing of the bricks that caused him to have a heart attack...![]()
Beyond all reasonable doubt? It wasn't. If he'd died of a head injury caused by the brick, that would be clear. It's highly probable that the throwing of bricks may have contributed to the heart attack, but generally, we ask for better evidence than that in a court of law.
It sucks royally, and the boys should be banged up for a good long while for what they did, but not for what they might have done.
throwing bricks at a guys head sounds like attempted murder or at least assault.
Just to clarify, they haven't been set free or anything. It's going for a retrial. Surely the point of justice is to keep the innocent from punishment as well as condemning the guilty?
That's no punishment!![]()