Michael Shields to receive Pardon.

scorza · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:23

Just to clarify, Shields has not been alleged to have killed anyone. His conviction was for attempted murder.

knip · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:24

Jack Straw, as he said himself earlier on the news had seen enough evidence (including new evidence from the police) to convince him he was innocent.

And I quote

Mr Straw said he changed his mind over ordering the Royal pardon after new evidence emerged which convinced him of Shields' innocence.

He added: "I have concluded, having looked carefully at all the evidence now available, that Michael Shields is telling the truth when he says he is innocent.

"That being so I have recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that he should be granted a free pardon."

Click to expand...

dirtydog · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:24

Evangelion said:
He was re-arrested by Police on arrival at his home on suspected rape charges dating back to 2003.

No source for this at the moment on wiki.

Gooner14 · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:25

Evangelion said:
He was re-arrested by Police on arrival at his home on suspected rape charges dating back to 2003.[/indent]

(Source).

Of which I can find no mention of anywhere.

scorza · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:26

Evangelion said:
He was re-arrested by Police on arrival at his home on suspected rape charges dating back to 2003.[/indent]

To be fair, I expect that's wikipedia shenanigans from Manyoo fans. The police could have arrested him at any time while in prison.

Sankari · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:32

dirtydog said:
No source for this at the moment on wiki.

Gooner14 said:
Of which I can find no mention of anywhere.

scorza said:
To be fair, I expect that's wikipedia shenanigans from Manyoo fans. The police could have arrested him at any time while in prison.

Fair enough. I'll wait and see.

RoboCod · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:38

Will he be given any financial benefit for essentially losing 4.5 years of life?

Glaucus · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:43

h00fzilla said:
From another forum, interesting point:

How is that interesting at all?

It's not, it is not evidence of anything and does not mean he committed any crime.

Burned_Alive · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:43

Captain Planet said:
Will he be given any financial benefit for essentially losing 4.5 years of life?

No, because he's essentially still convicted by the bulgarian authorities.

z0mbi3 · 9 Sep 2009 at 12:46

Captain Planet said:
Will he be given any financial benefit for essentially losing 4.5 years of life?

He's still got to finish paying back 90k to the guy who's head he supposedly cracked. At least I think it's 90k.

cheets64 · 9 Sep 2009 at 13:32

scorza said:
Just to clarify, Shields has not been alleged to have killed anyone. His conviction was for attempted murder.

Plus hes done 5 years for it, people get the same for murder.

dirtydog · 9 Sep 2009 at 13:35

cheets64 said:
Plus hes done 5 years for it, people get the same for murder.

I think how long he's served is irrelevant to his innocence or guilt.

LoadsaMoney · 9 Sep 2009 at 15:28

About bloody time

robmiller · 9 Sep 2009 at 15:43

cheets64 said:
Plus hes done 5 years for it, people get the same for murder.

No they don't—not unless there are significant mitigating circumstances, anyway. The the sentence for murder is mandatory life with a standard minimum tariff of 14 years:

When an adult is convicted of murder, a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory[…]

The Lord Chief Justice's Practice statement (Life sentences for murder) [2000] 2 Cr App R 457 sets a starting point of 14 years as the minimum term for a case with no aggravating or mitigating factors[…]

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/minimun_terms.pdf

Tute · 9 Sep 2009 at 15:50

If he's genuinely innocent, then fair play.

But the whole thing stinks something rotten.

I'm not convinced at all.

markweatherill · 9 Sep 2009 at 15:58

You know what? Jack Straw may just be convinced that Shields is 'morally and technically' innocent of Attempted Murder in the sense that his intent was not the death of his victim, but only to cause GBH or something.
Is that why that careful construction of words 'morally and technically' has been used?

sedm1000 · 9 Sep 2009 at 16:37

Evangelion said:
Agreed.

The victim (Martin Georgiev) wasn't actually murdered. He is very much alive, and testified at the trial:

Nine witnesses, both Bulgarian and British, later testified at the trial and many of them — including Georgiev himself — positively identified Shields (in an identity parade and in the court) as a person present at the crime scene and as the perpetrator of the crime.

(Source).

In other news, the fun-loving Mr Shields has just been arrested in connection with another of his merry escapades:

On 9th September 2009, Michael Shields was given a royal pardon and released.

His solicitor John Weate said: "I have spoken to Michael and he has been told that Jack Straw has granted a royal pardon. He was informed of the decision by the governor this morning. He was ecstatic and I'm delighted that an another innocent man is finally being freed."
.

(Almost) a Good post.

The Scousers have been banging this victim drum for a while, but the evidence against the conviction is equally contrived. He was a dumb kid getting himself in trouble, not the innocent that he has been made out to be.

Burned_Alive · 9 Sep 2009 at 16:38

Probably just because you have to be considered 'morally and technically innocent' to receive a pardon.

sedm1000 · 9 Sep 2009 at 16:47

Burned_Alive said:
Probably just because you have to be considered 'morally and technically innocent' to receive a pardon.

'Innocent of attempted murder' - which is different to innocent of any criminal behaviour.

Burned_Alive · 9 Sep 2009 at 17:33