With apologies to Stephen Colbert:
Where does Mr Straw find the raw courage to do exactly what the tabloids would want him to?
Maybe Biggs should have thought of this when he went on the run for 35 years.
Not a fan of Straw myself but I actually think the guy shouldn't be released after serving a measly 10 years.
He only came back to the UK after becomming ill and wanting medical care for free in the UK. I've no sympathy.
*Think*? What gives you the idea that the tabloids think? Surely emoting is all they're good for.
I agree with JS on this one: RB went on the run and stuck two fingers up to Britain for many years. If he had done his time he would be out now.
It's not often I agree with Straw, but Biggsy knew the score. Justice should be served regardless of age.
Why does it continually pain you so much that "the tabloids" disagree with your views? Have you ever considered the fact that the majority of people agree more with the tabloids than your good self?
If nothing else, we should lam bast him furiously for mouthing the following lyrics in the notorious sex pistols' song
"Belsen was a gas I heard the other day
In the open graves where the Jews all lay
Life is fun and I wish you were here
They wrote on postcards to those held dear
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Dentist search their teeth for gold
Frisk the Jews for bank notes rolled
When they found out what they got
Line them up and shoot the lot
Kill a man, be a man, kill a man...
Wonder what the Jews would say
If I told them where Boorman was today
Would they start a vendetta
You'd better ask Ernie Ledbetter
Ledbetter, Ledbetter, Ledbetter...."
Shameful really, despite Lydon and Mclaren's protestations at the time.
Fair play to Mr Battams in this piece however.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...-sent-
jail.html
JVIP
JVIP
Wont Biggs get better treatment inside than outside?
I can't see that it would make any difference whether he gets parole or not. He'll still be in the same bed in the same hospital being fed through the same tube. The decision is therefore more symbolic, although if him not getting parole means Biggs can't do any more of those interviews where he brags about what he did and shows no remorse than better that he stay "inside". He only came back for the free healthcare. That's what he's getting so he should be grateful.
Compassion seems to have been in very short supply on this blog recently.
Since Jack Straw has never made a stand on anything in his political life, I suppose there's no reason to expect him to start now.
Is there any official information of his state of health apart from the broken hip? All I've seen was provided by the people who want him released. And who were saying he didn't have long to live eight years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/14.../uk/
1473708.stm.
I'd hate to see him making an Ernest Saunders type recovery if he was freed.
I imagine this will end up in the High Court. It will be interesting to see what they make of it.
My guess is that the Secretary of State's decision stands a fair chance of getting overturned.
The Court won't be concerned with the 'merits' one way or the other, but simply whether Straw acted reasonably (as per the Wednesbury principles), took into account an irrelevant consideration or failed to take a material consideration into account.
As to the weight he gave to these various points, that is more of a grey area. In theory, this is a matter for the decision-maker, but the Courts have sometimes found ways of going behind this.
We shall see.
An interesting one.
I, too, think the Justice Secretary stands a good chance of having his decision overturned by way of Judicial Review in the High Court.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
In Biggs' current state, I would imagine that his deteriorating medical condition and continued detention would amount to such treatment or punishment.
I'm not saying the situation is ideal - and if he wasn't so frail I'd quite happily see him do his time - but he isn't and thus ought to be released on compassionate grounds.
Sure, let him out.
Then put him on the first plane back to Brazil.
Perhaps that is exactly what Mr. Straw wants - being forced by the Courts to release Biggs. Not his decision, those pinko judges made me do it gov.
There is much myth lengend and hyperbole surrounding the train robbers.
It would seem that to make proportional, reasonable and rational judgements in regard to Mr Biggs is a hard task.
By the very nature of his notoriety and dare i suggest celebrity the lines all to easily become blurred when trying to treat the guy as you would any other prisoner.
As part of the parliamentary reforms being suggested, maybe someone will pick up the baton again and re-asses the Executives public policy descisions in what really should be left to the judicary.
Other wise we will end up with "The Rule of Straw and not of men"
If you put parole decisions in the hands of a politician, then all you get is a political decision.
Is this prisoner actually physically capable of repenting, given the fact he is no longer capable of even feeding himself?
Just think, public time, effort and money wasted on dealing with another death in custody - and It's the Sun Wot Done It!
Jack Straw seems to be playing it tough at the moment. People will naturally think that he has two eyes on the forthcoming election.
There is nothing romantic about the 1963 so-called “Great Train Robbery.” 7 men (rightly) received 30 years each including Biggs. Four were sent to prison for terms of between 20 and 25 years. Another defendant, a solicitor who was convicted as “accessory after the fact”, was sent to prison for three years. The offence was thoroughly nasty with the train driver being hit on the head with an iron bar though the actual assailant was not identified. "Anybody who has seen that nerve-shattered engine driver can have no doubt of the terrifying effect on law-abiding citizens of a concerted assault by armed robbers" – Edmund-Davies J.
The sentencing was tough but the entire sentencing tariff was generally higher in 1964. Biggs escaped in 1965 and fled abroad where he remained, in various places, for almost 36 years until he surrendered himself. [It seems that we have The Sun to thank for paying his air fare back to the UK]. In total he has served about 9 years of the 30 year sentence.
We are not privy to the Parole Board Report sent to Mr. Straw though we are informed that Biggs no longer has good health and one has to suppose that his state of health will have been properly diagnosed by medical authorities. He is 80 years of age. Another factor is that the other defendants were released after serving around one-third of their sentences. We are also told that he is not showing remorse, a point on which a lot of emphasis is sometimes placed though, surely, it should be just one factor to weigh in the balance.
It may also be relevant to consider how other prisoners are treated. Sentences anywhere near 30 years would be unusual today (murder tariffs excepted and even there are often lower tariffs). Further, how are other ageing prisoners generally treated when it comes to parole?
Should Biggs be released? It is, in my opinion, not an easy decision but, on balance, I think he should be. His release would be on licence. He would not be entirely free as the media would have us believe and his licence can be subjected to appropriate conditions. Is Mr Straw’s decision unreasonable in the “Wednesbury” sense? It is difficult to say without being able to see all the evidence and reports. However, on the face of it, the decision is probably not unreasonable in that “common law” sense. Does failure to release amount to “degrading treatment or punishment” so as to contravene Article 3? The point is perhaps arguable and lawyers will have a go but it must surely be very debatable whether imprisonment – during which he will receive all appropriate medical treatment and will not actually be ill-treated – amounts to this. Imprisonment does not breach Article 3 per se.
The major problem I have with all this parole business is the part played by the Secretary of State. Would it not be preferable for politicians to be taken out of these processes altogether? The present system is open to the comment that they have their eyes on politics and not justice and it is difficult, if not impossible, to allay that concern.
Here is a case where the High Court directed the Secretary of State to reconsider a non-release decision - prisoner terminally ill:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/E.../2009/
1315.html
Without a doubt the right decision. Its not about what is right for Biggs it is about serving justice, something I thought that you yourself had sworn to do?
You are not the JP that believes that every Drug User is attempting to put their life back on track are you?
He needs to serve the time that he avoided doing in the first place. Sorry but his past has caught up with him. Good job.
When I heard Jack Straw's pronouncement on this, somehow the name "Pinochet" just bounced into my mind and it stays there ??
sam_m;
very apposite!
As for Paul, one man's justice is another man's cruelty. Just ask the Taleban. That is why in this country the law is administered by humans who apply the law and form judgments within that law from their own experience and their own conscience.
The gibe about drug users is jejune and insulting. If you care to use the search facility on the blog you will find that the thousand-plus posts include my views on the drug issue. I commend them to you.
I suspect there are a good number of people who die in prison during their sentence. In real terms Biggs enjoyed the best years of his life in Brazil and chose to return later when he was ill. On that basis I do not think it is unreasonable to expect him to complete his sentence irrespective of his state of health. He has placed himself in this position.
Where do we draw the line on this one? Should any prisoner in poor health or given a terminal diagnosis be released from prison? As long as we are consistent I am neutral on Biggs. Although I think their is always a place for compassion I don't see that Biggs has earned it particularly. One should not confuse sentimentality with compassion.
This is not a new issue. Should we put resources into tracing down concentration camp guards and doctors some sixty plus years after the end of WWII? In my view yes, lest others think that by exploiting the system they can get away with it. The deterrence philosophy. Biggs chose to evade lawful custody and have a good time in Brazil. he shows no remorse. What I wonder is why the parole board thought he should be released, not why Jack Straw (for whom I have no regard nor respect) thought he should not. With a bit of luck, the High Court lists to consider this will take till Biggs is 90 and Mr Straw long gone to his well earned political grave.
Mr Straw long gone to his well earned political grave
Shallow and unmarked. Just like him.
There's a good page on the BBC that compares famous armed robbery crimes over the years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz...ine/
8132532.stm
The reason the Great train Robbery resulted in such long sentences, is that the money stolen belonged to the state, not a private company.
Biggs was setence in a court to 30 years - and didn't appeal (he escaped) - he is now back and serving the sentence of the court - parole board may have suggestd he is released, but the home secretary isn't obliged (or is he) to release a prisoner before he has completed the sentence as set by the court
@ kh - The secretary of State has a discretion. Like any decision, it must be taken on "proper grounds" and that is where judicial review may be possible.
@ Vic - you have asserted that - "the reason the Great train Robbery resulted in such long sentences, is that the money stolen belonged to the state, not a private company."
Maybe - I know not. However, you have to remember that sentencing levels in the 1960s were much higher than today. [See my earlier post above]. Edmund-Davies J (1906-1992) was a first rate judge who rose to the highest level of the legal profession as a law lord. He was of the "old school" - tough, fair and as straight as a die. He was from Wales, attended Grammar School and then on to Oxford as Vinerian Scholar. (A brilliant start to any legal career). Personally, I regret the passing of that generation.
Everyone is right in a way. Biggs does not deserve release, but how are we served by keepinh him in prison. surely the state could exercise mercy, which does n't depend on him 'deserving' it, and we would all be better for it.
Was Biggs not further sentenced for his escape - or was that punishment free?
Ar least as a prisoner, the State will strive to keep him alive; better than having feeding withdrawn due to his "low quality of life" like many infirm and old people in hospitals.
I think we are served by seeing sentences properly completed. I find the current regime undermines what sentences are intended to achieve.
For example: Commit an offence 'worth' ten years in custody - plead guilty and immediately expect this to be reduced to 7. Serve your time and be out in 3.5 years or even less. I suspect few members of the public realise that in actual fact often only about 30% of the custodial sentence imposed is served.
The reduction for guilty plea is usually applied in the same manner to fines and community orders. Strictly speaking there is a sliding scale of reduction but it is difficult to apply consistently.
Fascination 'implication' that RB be let out of prison so his standard of care can be reduced to that available to the general public from the NHS?
Bye-the-bye - one 'reason' that he shouldn't be let out is that he has never shown remorse (or not in a format that would appease those who object on principle to ANY 'early release)
Brings to mind the case of Stephen Hodgson who had to remain in prison for many years for 'not showing remorse' over a murder he didn't commit.
If he hadn't spent 35 years boasting about the fact that he had done the crime and got away with it, I would be more sympathetic.
Nice use of photos bystander. Worthy of the front page of The Sun; get the worst possible photo of someone and print it to supoport your case. Tabloid journalism anyone?
Where's the naso-gastric tube ?
As is oft pointed out in these posts, sentencing is for the judicial system, not those of us who just take an interest. The law states that the Home Secretary has the power to make this decision, hence, the law has been complied with.
If we have a problem with this, parliament is the place to take it up with.
We all have a view on sentencing of offenders. I guess the fact that it does not always go the way we would like or approve of, applies equally to the left wing, hand wringing, liberals as well as to the right wing puritans.
'Nice use of photos bystander. Worthy of the front page of The Sun; get the worst possible photo of someone and print it to supoport your case. Tabloid journalism anyone?'
That's cheap and unworthy. I pasted the photo unadorned. Make of it what you choose. I see an apparently sick old man. Others see a dangerous criminal who is a threat to the public. It's personal, isn't it?
It`s obvious that he is not a threat to the public but there are probably a lot of people who regard him as some sort of hero and releasing him would give the wrong message and possibly encouragement.
Rough justice maybe but clear cut and understandable in this present day with its mind boggling complexity regarding sentencing.
Release him into the care of the NHS. Or would that violate Article 3?
Nice use of the photo Bystander... do I take it you have his permission to breach his privacy by showing a photo of him in in hospital? Have we not heard you criticising others for such use of photos in other matters... or is it alright if it happens to suit your point of view?
Don't be silly. I lifted it from a public news website, so it's in the public domain.
If Biggs is as sick as he appears in the photo then surely it doesn't matter whether he's in custody or not. Awaiting the imminent arrival of the grim reaper is surely the same whether you are in a prison hospital bed or an NHS hospital bed. Keep the bastard in until he croaks.
@Tony Frost - up his nose. It's clearly visible taped to his right cheek.
Commenting by HaloScan
