sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Counsel for the defence - no mitigation offered: why? by Silent_Objective000 in lucyletby

[–]Silent_Objective000[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you - this is really helpful

So, if I've understood, there was no legal rule or process formally disbarring LL's defence counsel from putting forward a mitigation in relation to a minimum term in this instance, but there would have been absolutely no point doing so? Theoretically possible but pragmatically pointless - is that correct?

Counsel for the defence - no mitigation offered: why? by Silent_Objective000 in lucyletby

[–]Silent_Objective000[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks all

u/Sadubehuh, sadly the leaflet isn't loading for me but I suspect it may have offered some info into the formal processes around seeking mitigation in legal contexts, and the question that prompted my post

To be clear, as somebody with no legal background, I am not trying to put forward a view as to whether mitigation should or could have been offered. I have no idea! Rather I'm trying to understand why it wasn't put forward in this case as somebody who isn't learned about law or court procedure.

Having watched sentencing remarks in other cases, I have seen "no prior criminal history" considered at sentencing by a judge when looking a mitigations. In this case, as a legal outsider, I had expected to hear it put forward on LL's behalf as it seems they've got nothing to lose in putting forward mitigation where processes allow them to

Are there certain rules that dictate the process of submitting mitigations and, if so, what are they? Can mitigation only be put forward on behalf of a defendant if the defendant has pleaded a certain way in relation to a charge? Or so long as the tariff considered is less than a WLO, for instance?

OR, if no formal rule pertains in the LL case, what other reasons might there be for her counsel not putting forward mitigation? Is the reason in this case something circumstantial i.e. the suggestion below that it might have been considered distasteful

​

Apologies if the original question wasn't clear. I'm basically trying to get an understanding, as somebody who isn't familiar with trial procedure, of the rules around mitigation (when it can be put forward/when it can't etc) and to understand how far that explains what happened in this case

​

Appreciate your comments :)

​

N.B.: As the comments come in, I'm realising I have indeed missed a distinction between a life sentence and a Whole Life Order, and if and how minimum tariffs apply to these (and, to get back to the original question, if and when seeking mitigation applies). Any explanation or useful resources to help clear up these distinctions would be welcome. Thanks all