Jon Venables: No risk to life or limb
Jack Straw's statement that he has seen no allegations "against Venables that he has killed or seriously injured anyone" is a blessing.
The test for dangerousness (to justify continued detention) is that a lifer poses a risk to life or limb (Benson/Bradley test). It would appear from Jack Straw's statement that fear of violence does not feature in the recall decision. For the risk level to have gone up there needs to be a causal link to the original offence. Bearing in mind that it was not established that there was a sexual element to James Bulger's murder, this poses a problem. If, as some papers report, the issue is about child pornography, it might be argued that this links to the index offence. There again, it might be argued that there is no link and it will be treated as an isolated crime on its own merit.
The Parole Board is risk averse, with a tendency to err too far on the side of caution in decision-making.
Personally, I think that there was a sexual element to the murder of James Bulger. And, possession of kiddie porn, without lawful excuse, might be deemed as too close for comfort and that the recall is approved. Another option is to release with tighter licence conditions.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment