38 min clearly was excessive under the guidelines when Ian Huntley got 40 min.

Our new LCJ reduced the sentence because the attack was so severe that Ms Aleena was rendered unconscious, and therefore that demands a LESS serious penalty.

She also threw out a murder conviction earlier this week - the second successful murder prosecution of the same man because of an earlier appeal - because of a footling technical error which not even the defence team noticed or challenged, and which made zero difference to the case itself.

One week into the job.  That's a pretty ropey start.

What seriously? He anaesthetised her with blunt force trauma so it's ok?

Our new LCJ reduced the sentence because the attack was so severe that Ms Aleena was rendered unconscious, and therefore that demands a LESS serious penalty.

Would you like the degree of suffering of the victim to increase the sentence or not?  Sounds like you don't think her suffering should be an aggravating factor.

Seriously.

49 The Judge found (correctly) that Ms Aleena "must have been rendered unconscious" early on in the attack, because the appellant then "dragged her around without independent movement from her". Mr Glasgow stated that it was apparent that Ms Aleena had been conscious for some 30 seconds or so in the initial stages of the violent assault, and thereafter was rendered unconscious and unable to fight back.

50 However, the Judge went on to conclude that Ms Aleena "suffered inordinately and this is an aggravating feature". She stated that it was speculation that Ms Aleena remained unconscious, and that there was evidence contrary to that suggestion, including the need, as he saw it, for the appellant to return to the victim twice after initially leaving her. As we have said, the Judge stated that Ms Aleena survived for eight hours after the attack.

51 We do not consider that a finding of inordinate suffering such as to amount to an aggravating feature was properly open to the Judge.

So where does that leave me with my Rohypnol, then?

What seriously? He anaesthetised her with blunt force trauma so it's ok?

Do you think someone who causes suffering and pain to their victim, as compared to someone who due to circumstances did not, should get a greater sentence?  Or should it be the same regardless of the extent to which the victim suffered? 

Judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2023/1250.html

it’s purely a technical matter as the victim’s family acknowledged

he’s never getting out

I would not have reduced the sentence

So where does that leave me with my Rohypnol, then?

If she dies, life with 33 years minimum apparently

sorry, I mean minimum term

I expect laz is right though

Would you like the degree of suffering of the victim to increase the sentence or not?

Should it make a difference with murder?  Should a really good assassin get a lower sentence than one doing an apprenticeship?

I would not have reduced the sentence

So you don't think sentences should be increased due to the degree of suffering inflicted on the victim?

My poorly made Rohypnol point is that it aggravates a rape but likely diminishes a murder sentence.

Doesn't seem all that consistent.

Should it make a difference with murder?  Should a really good assassin get a lower sentence than one doing an apprenticeship?

The overall sentence (life) should be the same. I think someone who tortures someone to death over an extended period should get a longer minimum sentence than someone who killed instantly

I don't disagree with the analysis, I would have accepted the 2 criticisms of the judge's decision, but concluded that the original sentence was nevertheless appropriate