LIFE IMPRISONMENT

FALSE TESTIMONY - The then occupier of this house gave misleading evidence in the Crown Court in Lewes in 1988, and subsequently offered more misleading testimony to Inspector Raymond Michael in 1997. We wonder if that was just a sequence of memory lapses, or if the gentleman was working with Wealden's officers, or vice versa.

Should you be in any doubt, you should know that the gentleman was the controlling mind of Lime Park Estate Limited for a number of years. The aim of this company was to further disadvantage a neighbour who was not as wealthy and could not afford legal representation. The object being to steamroller him under to seize his then property.

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted persons are to remain in prison either for the rest of their natural life or until paroled. Crimes for which, in some countries, a person could receive this sentence include murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, blasphemy, apostasy, terrorism, severe child abuse, rape, child rape, espionage, treason, high treason, drug dealing, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe cases of fraud, severe cases of financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage in English law, and aggravated cases of arson, kidnapping, burglary, or robbery which result in death or grievous bodily harm, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and in certain cases genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, certain war crimes or any three felonies in case of three strikes law (USA). Life imprisonment can also be imposed, in certain countries, for traffic offenses causing death. The life sentence does not exist in all countries. Portugal was the first to abolish life imprisonment, in 1884.

Where life imprisonment is a possible sentence, there may also exist formal mechanisms for requesting parole after a certain period of prison time. This means that a convict could be entitled to spend the rest of the sentence (until that individual dies) outside prison. Early release is usually conditional on past and future conduct, possibly with certain restrictions or obligations. In contrast, when a fixed term of imprisonment has ended, the convict is free. The length of time served and the conditions surrounding parole vary. The date when a convict is eligible for parole does not necessarily predict when or if parole will be granted. In most countries around the world, a person granted parole after being sentenced to life imprisonment is usually on parole for the remainder of their natural lives.

Some technically finite sentences handed out, in particular the United States, exceed the human maximum life span and are therefore seen as de facto life sentences. Additionally, for particularly heinous crimes, courts will sometimes add additional years onto the life sentence in order to ensure that no amount of good behavior could ever result in the person being set free. For example, Ariel Castro, who kidnapped Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry, and Gina DeJesus from the streets of Cleveland, was sentenced in 2013 to "life, plus 1,000 years" for the 937 criminal counts including kidnapping, rape, and murder. Courts in South Africa have handed out at least two sentences that have exceeded a century (to Moses Sithole, whose sentence exceeds two millennia, and Eugene de Kock).

Few countries allow for a minor to be given a lifetime sentence with no provision for eventual release; these include Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina (only over the age of 16), Australia, Belize, Brunei, Cuba, Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and the United States. According to a University of San Francisco Law School study, only the U.S. had minors serving such sentences in 2008. In 2009, Human Rights Watch estimated that there were 2,589 youth offenders serving life sentences without the possibility for parole in the U.S. The United States leads in life sentences (both adults and minors), at a rate of 50 people per 100,000 residents imprisoned for life.

UK MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCES

Parliament has decided that judges must give a life sentence to all offenders found guilty of murder. The judge will set a minimum term an offender must serve before they can be considered for release by the Parole Board.

The minimum term for murder is based on the starting points set out in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as amended). This schedule sets out examples of the different types of cases and the starting point which would usually be applied, for example, where the murder is committed with a knife or other weapon, the starting point is 25 years.

The offender will only be released once they have served the minimum term and if the Parole Board is satisfied that detaining the offender is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. If released, an offender serving a life sentence will remain on licence for the rest of their life. They may be recalled to prison at any time if they are considered to be a risk to the public. They do not need to have committed another offence in order to be recalled.

AN EXAMPLE OF MALFEASANCE WHERE LIFE IMPRISONMENT 'COULD' BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CONSPIRATORS

Wealden District Council had secured a part award of costs in relation to their attempts to deprive poor old Nelson of his right to a toilet and washing facilities while at work. Talk about victimization! The only man in England not to be allowed to defecate and urinate in some kind of comfort while at work.

That was the level of confidence Wealden's officers thought they held sway through the courts, that they could get any order, even one that the court had no power to make. David Phillips was the enforcement officer that was out to get Mr Kruschandl and he attended before Dame Butler-Sloss with a bevy of officers sitting back in the courtroom. He was aided and abetted by Vic Scarpa and his apprentice hatchet lady, Christine Nuttall. They of course had other legal advice paid for by the rate payer.

It did not stop there for that is impossible in an organization as corrupt in their practices as Wealden. Trevor Abbott and Trevor Scott are known to have been in the background, especially when they got caught out, with Daniel Goodwin coming to the rescue with the following Consent Order which he signed on behalf of his Council, the idea being, presumably, to quiet-ten things down so that they could deal the final blow after they had pulled the teeth from Kruschandl's claim as to institutionalized discrimination and/or negligence.

VICTIM - The victim of this course of malicious conduct was doing his best to protect and restore a heritage site, that of course the naughty council were doing their best to thwart. Fortunately, the truth finally came out in 1999, when the council's officers were rather caught with their trousers down. But what of a prosecution by the state? What chance of that for the conspirators?

The point here is that when more than one person is involved in at attempt to coerce a court to break the law, it becomes a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. We think we have demonstrated here that there was obviously more than one officer in the mix. It gets worse of course, because in order to use public money to pursue Mr Kruschandl at this level of expense to the tax payer, the officers first had to secure approval from the members of this Council. In this case it would have been the Area Plans South sub-committee- and it was Roy Martin who presided as chairman when David Phillips advised the gathering, an unlawful assembly as it now seems, that he and his co-conspirators were "looking to enforce."

You can read this for yourself in the transcript - and if you are in law enforcement in England, or policy making in any one of England's Governments, Conservative, Labour, Liberal or UKIP, you can request a copy of the recording to satisfy yourself as to the accuracy of the Transcript dated the 25th of July 1998. There is no limitation in statute for the prosecution of a crime of this magnitude. It is surely in the public interest to make an example of those involved.

Selective policing in Sussex is another crime where the police officers involved in the cover up of a petition seeking the prosecution of corrupt planning officers, should join the officers of the council that they were conspiring to protect, particularly where masonic influence may have been involved.

One should consider that the officers involved in this conspiracy effectively took the life of their victim in preventing him from enjoying what is considered to be a normal happily married life. We assert that any person or persons in public office that commit such acts as a sequence or compounding of offences that is designed to ruin a person could and should be sentenced according to the seriousness of their offences against the person. If not life imprisonment, then at least a hefty sentence for crimes against humanity.

REFORM OR ABOLITION

In a number of countries, life imprisonment has been effectively abolished. Many of the countries whose governments have abolished both life imprisonment and indefinite imprisonment have been culturally influenced or colonized by Spain or Portugal and have written such prohibitions into their current constitutional laws (including Portugal itself but not Spain).

A number of European countries have abolished all forms of indefinite imprisonment, including Serbia, Croatia and Spain, which set the maximum sentence at 40 years (for each conviction, which in practice keeps the possibility of de facto life imprisonment), Bosnia and Herzegovina, which sets the maximum sentence at 45 years, and Portugal, which abolished all forms of life imprisonment with the prison reforms of Sampaio e Melo in 1884 and sets the maximum sentence at 25 years.

Norway (de jure) and Spain (de facto from 1993 until February 2018, the question being now debated of reintroducing de jure life imprisonment, its habitual practice before it became a democracy in 1978-1983) have abolished life imprisonment but retain other forms of indefinite imprisonment.

In Europe, the only countries in which the law expressly provides for life sentences without the possibility of parole are England and Wales (within the United Kingdom), the Netherlands, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary and the Republic of Ireland.

In South and Central America, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic have all abolished life imprisonment. The maximum sentence is 75 years in El Salvador, 60 years in Colombia, 50 years in Costa Rica and Panama, 40 years in Honduras, 25 years in Ecuador, 30 years in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Venezuela, and 25 years in Paraguay. Brazil has a maximum sentence of 30 years under statutory law, but life imprisonment and capital punishment are provided by law for crimes committed during wartime (for military crimes such as treason, desertion, and mutiny) and in the Constitution.

In the United States, a 2009 report by the Sentencing Project suggested that life imprisonment without parole should be abolished in the country. U.S. law enforcement officials opposed its proposed abolition.

Pope Francis proposed the abolition of both capital punishment and life imprisonment in a meeting with representatives of the International Association of Penal Law. He also stated that life imprisonment, recently removed from the Vatican penal code, is just a variation of the death penalty.

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/types-of-sentence/life-sentences/

https://www.gov.uk/types-of-prison-sentence/life-sentences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office

Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322

This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated. Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided. All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide. Horse Sanctuary UK Limited.