Everard. we have also been hearing applications from the attorney general to actually impose how live orders on some other murderers who the crown basically says have been treated unduly leniently by trial judges. quite a complicated picture and that is why so manyjudges are involved because what they say at the end of this well defined with howjudges the end of this well defined with how judges a the end of this well defined with howjudges a deal with these cases. let me tell you about wayne couzens case. when he was jailed last autumn for the murder of sarah everard, the former police officer was told by the trialjudge who is one of the most seniorjudges in the country, that his crime is so serious because he committed it as a serving police officer, abusing his position as a serving police officer to basically trick her into his car and to take away her to kill her that he warranted a whole life order, effectively because his crime as a police officer had undermined trust, the whol
Police. rememberthe the whole of society s trust in the police. remember the public outcry at the time. his counsel told the court today that that whole life order was manifestly unfair because although he should be locked up for decades, he did cross the barfor a whole life order because he showed remorse as a part of his case. there is a bit of debate about that, if he showed remorse but that is the nub of his argument and the critical factor they are being if you have shown some kind of remorse, then a whole life order isn t an appropriate punishment because you are potentially on the road to some kind of understanding of your crimes. one of the other interesting cases before the court today was emma tustin. she murdered her partner s sam, six year old arthur labinjo hughes. she was jailed for 29 years at coventry crown court. the attorney general wants that sentence lifted. the day in court her barristers basically said at the very least she should have been considered for a whole