further aggravating factor is your use of two weapons, a brick and a knife, which you took to the scene. in addressing the on the application of schedule 21 i m urged to find that not only is paragraph three not engage but neither is paragraph four and he argues that the knife that you carried was not one which was taken to the scene in the technical sense intended to be conveyed by paragraph four but i reject the submission and i am sure that you took a knife with you to the building and that you intended when you were there to commit an offence of sexual assault and or have the knife available as a weapon, it is not disputed that you used the weapon in committing the murder of nikki allan. paragraph counter is therefore engaged and this finding is overtaken by my earlier conclusion that this is a murder of particular seriousness but the fact that a knife was taken, even a penknife, and it was used, represents a significant aggravating factor which i must take into account.
before 2000 by applying the relevant practice directions and other guidance available. if the minimum term to be served would have been shorter before december 2002 that i must apply that shorter term. i start therefore by considering the appropriate term you must serve by reference to scheduled 2i appropriate term you must serve by reference to scheduled 21 of the sentencing act. in this context i make the following findings which i am sure, having the trialjudge, you lured nikki allan away by telling her lies. 0nly lured nikki allan away by telling her lies. only you know what you said to her, to cause her to leave the gully with you shortly before 10pm in 1992 to leave with you. somehow you tricked her into going with you to the opposite direction to her home and on a cold and dark night. you do not use force. a witness saw you both on your way to the old exchange building, you leading the way and nikki allan skipping along after you, the impression of that witness was
suffering in the moments before her loss of consciousness, and she must die quickly knowing that you were coming after her and there was nowhere for her to hide. she was in a cold pitch black building and her terror at what was to happen is unimaginable. you then take steps to conceal what you have done and you did your best to hide her body by dragging her down into the dark cellar when you dumped her in the far corner of the room furthest away from the staircase. no one would have been likely to have found her body, had they not been looking for it in the cellar with a decent torch. you then covered yourself by giving false information to the police and provided yourself with a neat but false alibi. claiming to have been away getting fish and chips for a friend at the time when
, suffering the mental and physical suffering which nikki allan experience before you killed her, this bears repetition. i have taken into account that that board of mental suffering which you must have experienced after you had pushed her into the derelict building, she must die quickly knowing that she was trapped, she must adequately moan that you were coming after her she must have quickly knowing that she must have quickly knowing that she was trapped. she must have quickly knowing that you were coming after her. it must have been a truly terrifying experience for the seven year old girl. i also take into account what happened outside the building, before you pushed her inside it. there was clearly some sort of struggle after your assault or attempted assault and one which she was bound to lose and i do not underestimate how frightening this experience must have been for her. a
meltdown. similarly, capital requirements having money required from the bank are the cooling agent of risk taking in the economy. and just as nuclear fuel will always be reactive, people will always have a tendency to be greedy. we need to enforce rules to balance natural greed so that greed can create risk taking and competition, not short term extraction. fair assessment? it takes brilliant metaphor. i ve always said a football game without referees become mayhem and a mob. people appreciate a nuclear power plant without coolant. so i think your metaphor is exactly right. you and i and this is a point that i think bears repetition, we are capitalists. we believe in capitalism, competition, and people trying to get rich. that s good. it s a question as you say of having the coolant, the referees, the rules to make sure it is done the right way. and the right way very simply