Talk:Murder of April Jones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kidnapped or abducted?

I believe that in the intro, it should refer to the taking of her as "Abduction" and not "Kidnapping" All the coverage to date has termed her as being abducted and not kidnapped, but what do other people think?Markdarrly (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy for you to change it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Done that, and iv also updated the list of charges to include perverting the course of justice. The cited ref states that PTC of J is also a charge being levied so a further ref is not needed.Markdarrly (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks ok. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Court appearance

Saturdays edition of the Guardian states that the suspect will be appearing in court on Sunday? Its now Sunday PM and no news has been put out. It is possible that the day was correct, but because it has been leaked, it has been changed. There will obviously be a huge crowd of people around the court building, maybe the police wanted to get it done on the Q.T. ?Markdarrly (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD compatible?

Sure label me as a jerk but I think this page is basically following the same thing as 'disappearance of Megan Stammers' which was deleted [1] I don't know coding but WP:NOTNEWS and because it looks like a stub i'd call this WP:TOOSOON. can someone throw this on the AfD please? Anyone is welcome to prove to me why it shouldn't be there. CHCSPrefect (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Murder of Sarah Payne went on to become notable enough for an article, but it still early days here. However, I don't think that the case for immediate deletion on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER grounds is as strong as it was with the Megan Stammers article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think certainly that one of the things which makes this case notable, though it is still early in the proceedings, is a murder charge without the presence of a body. That's quite unusual; I can only think of a couple of occasions in recent history where that's happened - the murder of Suzanne Pilley being one of them. I think as long as we keep a close watch on this article to make sure nothing speculative or unreferenced creeps in it should be fine. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have a thing for being wrong huh? :( I've just had a problematic weekend and I thought that helping people out with Wikipedia might be of help. Came back to that my talk page pieces on the MS article went to waste, very few can just take that lying down am I right? Problem is that most subjects that I could help on have all of the information that I could give. Anyway, depression rant over. Could someone make the Megan Stammers page on Wikinews perhaps? I'd ask on its talk page but it's gone and i'm not sure where else I could ask. CHCSPrefect (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't fret, you've done nothing wrong. Without the circumstances surrounding the murder charge this would almost certainly be a candidate for deletion. It may still be actually, as the point I made is only my personal opinion. I'm personally in favour of holding off for longer before these articles appear, but was pleased to see five days elapsed before someone created it instead of the usual two. I'm not on Wikinews, but I'm sure someone who is will create it. Alternatively, why not join yourself and have a go. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox - biography vs news event

Someone's recently changed the infobox from a bio to a news event, and though this is not a biography the rules seem confusing. I recently got told off by a very senior editor for adding a bio box and image to a criminal case article, although an article I worked on that went through FAC has a bio box without anyone complaining about it. She did not provide an answer when I questioned her about this, so I think we need some clarity. Which infobox is appropriate for this type of article? Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is entitled Disappearance of April Jones, not April Jones, so it is not a biography. Jones would fail any test of personal notability.WWGB (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Check out Murder of Joanna Yeates. One could argue that the article concerns the case and not Yeates herself, but objection has never been raised to the infobox. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Naming of suspects

I'm very uncomfortable with naming the murder suspect at this stage, particularly when we're not availed of the full facts. It brings to mind the Stepping Hill case where someone was charged and remanded only to have all charges later dropped against them. A person's reputation can be destroyed, even if they are later exonerated. As we're not the tabloid press, I really think we should know a lot more about this before we name names. Personally I'm of the opinion that a suspect in any case shouldn't be identified publicly at such an early stage. It would deprive the media of their ability to produce sensationalist stories about murder suspects, but that's not a bad thing at the end of the day. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You are proposing to ignore WP:NOTCENSORED. Your personal discomfort is at odds with Wikipedia policy. The accused's name is widely available in the British media. If charges are subsequently dropped, it is a simple matter to edit the article. WWGB (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as censorship, more a case of common sense. Why should we jump on the tabloid bandwagon? Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Already named by the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent and The Telegraph amongst others. Hardly a "tabloid bandwagon". WWGB (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but my concern is that any person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, and caution should be taken in naming any individuals connected with a case. Ideally, any jurors sitting at a trial are not supposed to have formed an opinion about the case before hearing the evidence. The editions of the newspapers naming him will be long gone by the time the trial begins, but anything added to Wikipedia is preserved in aspic. This discussion only serves to prove why we urgently need a moratorium on articles of this nature. A potntial juror could easily research this case, read the background and form a decision about the accused. No matter how horrendous the crime, any murder trial needs to be conducted fairly. One day there is going to be a huge row over something like this, because someone read about a case on Wikipedia and was deemed to have been influenced before the trial started. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a very hard call to make. On the one hand, this guy's name is well known and has been plastered all over the media - he was even named by the police before any charges were brought against him which in itself is unusual. The police must be certain that this person is 100% responsible for what ever has happened to this girl. We are not privvy to the files of either the police or the CPS but you can bet your life, if he has been named in this manner, they must have some evidence to back it up. On the other hand, just because he has been named by every Tom dick and Harry on fleet Street and beyond does not mean that Wikipedia must follow suit. IMO, after he has appeared in Crown court, then it would be time for his name to be placed into the article. Once the cat is out of the bag, in these kinds of situation, you cant put it back in. Markdarrly (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, his name has been published in multiple media sources, but as we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, I feel it would have been much better not to name him just yet. We should have waited till the police released more details. Doing my research for the Jo Yeates article gave me a lot of time to reflect on what should and shouldn't be included. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

An agreed time frame where the name of a suspect being put into Wikipedia would be acceptable is long overdue. Once a case has arrived at the crown court and the person has at that point been remanded into custody, I think that naming would be in order. A person who has been charged with murder cannot be granted bail at the magistrates court in any instance, so once it does reach the crown court stage, a remand into custody outcome is (and I say this with caution) is usually followed by a full trial - I dont know any cases where a RIC that has been imposed at crown court has been reversed and the charges dropped or a person has been granted bail until the start of the trial proper.Markdarrly (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A 34 year old defendant in the V Festival murder at Chelmsford was released on bail just a few weeks ago having previously been remanded in custody at Chelmsford Crown Court. The Bail Act 1976 only prohibits bail for people charged with rape, attempted rape, murder and attempted murder when they have already served a custodial sentence for a similar offence, and even then allows bail in exceptional circumstances. Keristrasza (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Since 1976 the Bail Act has been updated several times. A magistrate cannot grant bail to a person charged with murder. Section 115 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states "Where a person is charged with murder, bail can only be granted by a judge of the crown court. The power of the magistrates court to consider bail in murder cases, whether at the first hearing or after the breach of an existing bail condition, is now removed"Markdarrly (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You stated "I don't know any cases where a RIC that has been imposed at crown court has been reversed and the charges dropped or a person has been granted bail until the start of the trial proper." I pointed out an example from last month. Keristrasza (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I now know of a case and I thank you for the info, but a magistrate cannot give bail to a person charged with murder. Markdarrly (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

?A magistrate is perfectly able to grant bail to a suspect charged with murder. Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 provides that bail shall be granted to:(a) A person accused of an offence who appears before a magistrates' court or the Crown Court in connection with proceedings for the offence. (b) A person accused of an offence who applies to a court for bail in connection with the proceedings. (c) A person who, having been convicted of an offence, appears before a magistrates' court to be dealt with for breach of a probation or community service order. (d) A person who has been convicted of an offence and whose case has been adjourned for reports to be obtained before sentence.

Section 4 applies whether a person appears before a magistrates' court or the Crown Court. Schedule 1 to the Act outlines the circumstances under which the magistrate may choose to refuse bail. I stand corrected, you are right. The provision came into effect February 2010 amending schedule 1. Keristrasza (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, the bail act has been updated. A person who is in the dock of a magistrates court today charged with murder cannot be granted bail by that magistrate. How do you not understand that. The legislation you refer to is out of date, it has been updated many times in the 36 years since its inception. Markdarrly (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Facebook case sentencing

The maximum sentence is six months -

"s.127:(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."

Furthermore, the chairman of the bench stated that Woods received a reduction for his early guilty plea. Keristrasza (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The 6 month sentance is when more than one communication has been sent. The discount comes of the sentance after its imposition, not before. For a single communication the sentance shall not exceed 12 weeks. Because he sent a single communication, he recieved the maximum sentance of 12 weeks. A discount for a guilty plea brings it down to 8 weeks. I dont think the BBC are wrong, if they are, the magistrate is also wrong because they are directly quoting him. Markdarrly (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The legislation is quite clear: "(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b)causes such a message to be sent; or (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."

No mention of single v multiple communications or 12 weeks maximum. Keristrasza (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Because that is out of date legislation. It is from 9 years ago, it has been updated since then to include new scales. Markdarrly (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there have been no alterations of the sort you mention. s127 has received no amendments. And just because an Act is 9 years old doesn't make it "out of date"! Also, the reduction for a guilty plea is not applied (mathematically) post sentencing. See eg s174(2)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003. The process begins with the court deciding the sentence that should be imposed for the offence(s) then selects the amount of the reduction by reference to the sliding scale then applies the reduction and finally pronounces sentence in court, explaining what reductions were applied. Keristrasza (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The max sentence for the offence is 12 weeks. Im not going to argue with you all night, the legislation is not out of date, the sentence guidelines are. The magistrate stated that he was applying the maximum sentence and this was reported by the BBC and is stated on the red button, so if they are reporting what the magistrate said, he must be wrong, so I suggest you contact Chorley magistrates in the morning and tell them how to do there jobs correctly. Read the red button text, it states "Wood's of EavesLane, Chorley was handed the maximum sentance" Markdarrly (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Crown Prosecution Service states "Improper use of public electronic communications network - Communications Act 2003, section 127...A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme." I trust they understand the legislation better than the BBC's red button does. Keristrasza (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBC reporter was in court when the magistrate summed up. He reported what was said. The magistrate stated that he had imposed the maximum sentence, I think that a magistrate knows sentencing guidlines better than most people, if he stated that he was imposing the max sentence and the lad got 12 weeks, then , to my way of thinking, 12 weeks is the max. Markdarrly (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Act was also central to the case of Paul Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 2157 heard in the High Court before the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in July this year, who stated: "Section 127 of the Act addresses the problem of the unlawful use of the public electronic communications network. It provides...(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both." Clearly, I will go with the Lord Chief Justice's "way of thinking." Keristrasza (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not know which scale the magistrate applied to the case, the scale is dependent on offence characteristics. Im not going round in circles, he said this, she said that. The magistrate must be wrong, take it up with them if it bothers you that much.Markdarrly (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Page 38 of the magistrates sentencing guidlines state "Section 127(1)) Sending grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages, - Single call where extreme language used and substantial distress or fear caused to reciever OR one of a series of similar calls as described above" - starting point is 6 weeks custody and the range is High level community order to 12 weeks custody. That is what he did and that is what he got. That is what is meant by a sentence range. The max for what he did is 12 weeks as it falls into this range. Markdarrly (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to the wrong section of the act when you are applying your argument. You are going off the sentencing for section 127, that section is for the "Sending of Improper messages". That is not what he was sentenced under. This person was charged and sentanced under section 127 (1)a which relates to grossly offensive, obscene or menacing e mails. And the max for that is 12 weeks. An offence that comes under section 127 does carry a 6 month max sentence, but an offence under section 127(1)a carries a 3 month max sentence, and that is what this case falls under, section 127 (1)a. Markdarrly (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the article to correct the section that the troll was convicted under. It stated 127 but he was convicted under section 127(1)a. I dont even think the section is relevent, this article is about a missing child, what section a person who wrote these remarks was sentenced under is off topic, but if somebody has put it into the article, then at least it should be correct.Markdarrly (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not referring to the wrong section of the Act. The section is s127, which clearly states that any of the acts described constitute an offence under s127 and all carry a maximum sentence of 6 months. The Magistrates' Sentencing Guidelines (and in my copy it is page 42) do exactly what they say on the label: they are guidelines. The actual maximum term is laid down in the Act, not the bloody guidelines! Right at the top of the page in the sentencing guidelines, before listing the suggested punishments, it clearly states: "Triable only summarily: Maximum: Level 5 fine and/or 6 months." A sentencing range, as the guidelines helpfully explain, is the "range within which the sentence will normally fall in most cases." Finally, I have no need to take it up with the magistrate as the magistrate is not the one editing the article page here to incorrectly state that 12 weeks is the maximum sentence possible for a s127 CA 2003 offence. Keristrasza (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Within the CA, sections exist for different offences. The maximum sentence under the ACT is 6 months. An act is laid down and that is the maximum that anybody convicted under that act can be jailed for. It is a maximum for the act, not for each section of the act. Each section has a different sentence available for it and the max available for section 127 (1)a is 12 weeks in custody. This person was convicted under section 127 (1)a, and as the max for that SECTION is 12 weeks custody, in being given that as a sentence, he has recieved the max. It is like earlier when you were so sure that bail could be granted at a magistrates to a person charged with murder, you quoted this and that, but now, like then you are incorrect. I dont think a magistrate, me and the BBC have all got it so wrong but you are correct. Il wait for a 3rd party input, you wont listen to reason. Markdarrly (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If all sections carry the same max, then why are have any sections other than section 1? If what you say is correct then all that would happen is anybody convicted would be subject to a max of 6 months whatever the offence under the act, but some offences are classed as lesser offences and are required to have a lower maximum sentence. That is the whole idea of having different sections of acts, so that different offences can be given different sentences. Some have a 6 month max, some have a 12 week max etc etc, it gives magistrates flexibility so that if a person has been charged under the wrong section, it can be amended and the correct sentence imposed, the magistrate could have given this person 10 weeks custody but instead chose to give the maximum available to him under the section of the act that the offence fell into, the offence fell into section 127 (1)a so that is what he sentenced him under - section 127 (1)a. Markdarrly (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To put this in a way that you may understand. Lets say that a 1st class stamp is 6 months and a 2nd class stamp is 3 months. The maximum price for postage would be 6 months, but it does not mean that the maximum price for a stamp is 6 months. He was charged under "2nd class" postage rates that carry 3 months. As the meerkats say - Simples Markdarrly (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Balderdash. The maximum sentence for each section differs. There is no single maximum sentence "whatever the offence under the act." Example, section 125 (Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services) - "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both." Six months is the maximum term for all offences covered by section 127. You clearly have not read the legislation and have no true understanding of it. Keristrasza (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You are the one that said they all carry a max 6 month sentence, if you look above you put it in triple quotation marks. You have lost the plot. The act covers everything from decoding set top boxes to chipping mobiles, each section has a different maximum sentance that can be imposed for it. The maximum sentence under , and I say it yet again, SECTION 127 (1)a is 12 weeks custody. Markdarrly (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I said that all of the offences contained in s127 carry a 6 month maximum. Not everything in the Act. You clearly have comprehension issues. Keristrasza (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Go to www.northants.police.uk/files/linked/WCU/Magistrate%20Sentencing%20Guidline.pdf --- then find Communication Act 2003, ss 127 (1) and 127 (2). You will note that it does say the maximum is Level 5 fine and or 6 months. If you read the table you will see that Section 127 (1) refers to the sending of grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages and this section is applied to "Single call where extreme language used and substantial distress or fear caused to receiver; or one of a series of similar calls as described in the box above". The range box at the right hand side states High level community order to 12 weeks custody. That is what this person was charged under, section 127 (1) a range is an area between two points. The maximum point at which a sentence can be imposed for an offence under this section is 12 weeks. Whats not to understand about that? The BBC, Magistrates, Lancashire Telegraph and the quoted website all state that he received the max sentence. Is everybody wrong except for you? Markdarrly (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talking to you is like hitting one's head against a dense wall. See what you wrote there? "You will note that it does say the maximum is Level 5 fine and or 6 months." EXACTLY! SIX MONTHS MAXIMUM... For all offences in section 127. The rest is the guidelines issued to magistrates to indicate the "range within which the sentence will normally fall in most cases." I give up. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Keristrasza (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a dense item around here and it aint me or the wall. You dont understand. The ACT has a maximum sentance of 6 months. We are not talking about the act per se, we are talking about a section within that act, and that section has a maximum of 12 weeks, he has been sentenced under a section of the CA. That section carries a 12 week max. Like I said, If im wrong, the magistrate is wrong, the BBC is wrong, The Lancs Telegraph is wrong and the quoted sources are wrong. That a lot of wrong people and you are the one who is correct? Does common sense not tell you that if the max available was 6 months, then the lad would have got 6 months, or am I wrong on that aswell?? Markdarrly (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Murder of...?

Would it be acceptable to rename the article?--85.210.102.96 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if there is a murder conviction. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Like this one, for example. You can shower me with barnstars later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Birth date

Should we include the victim's birth date? Other murder articles (such as Soham Murders and Murder of Stephen Lawrence) include the victims' DOB. The date can be seen here also here. --Zanfor21 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I know we can't use findagrave because that isn't regarded as a reliable source. Not sure about the BBC link. The article itself doesn't mention this, but there's an image of the order of service that gives a birth date. I'm tempted to say the document is a primary source so we couldn't use it, but I can't imagine it not being correct. Perhaps someone else can comment here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This BBC source appears to confirm April Jones' date of birth as 4 April 2007.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There's also an article here giving her full name.--Zanfor21 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Oops, sorry about that, I reverted the wrong edit. Glad someone else is watching.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)