Sam Hallam Released On Bail After Appeal Over 2004 Murder Conviction please log in to view this image A young man who has always pleaded his innocence over a 2004 murder had his first taste of freedom in more than seven years today after a dramatic twist in his case at the Court of Appeal. Sam Hallam, 24, from Hoxton, east London, whom lawyers described as the victim of a "serious miscarriage of justice", was released by leading judges after prosecutors announced they were not opposing his challenge against conviction. Mr Hallam, who was 18 when found guilty and sentenced to life at the Old Bailey for the murder of a trainee chef, was released from the cells at the Royal Courts of Justice in London to be greeted by emotional family members and dozens of tearful and cheering supporters. His mother Wendy Cohen, 53, who hugged her dazed-looking son, said the family was in a state of shock over the turn of events. Surrounded by well-wishers she said: "My family has been through hell. It has been torture for Sam and the whole family." After leaving the building they were drenched in champagne by supporters waiting outside. Among those greeting Mr Hallam were his brothers Terry, 31, and Danny, 29, and sister Daisy, 16. His father, Terry, was found hanged in October 2010. Mr Hallam was released on bail by three leading judges after the prosecution announced it was not opposing his challenge against his conviction for the murder of a trainee chef. He was convicted in October 2005 of the murder of Essayas Kassahun, 21, who died after being attacked by a group of youths on the St Luke's estate in Clerkenwell, London, in October 2004. Since his conviction, Mr Hallam's family and friends have mounted a high-profile campaign insisting he is innocent. The 24-year-old was jailed for life at the Old Bailey in 2005. Earlier his appeal court heard Hallam was the victim of a "serious miscarriage of justice." Reports from the court said there was a "roar" from the public gallery and a "spine tingling atmosphere" after it was confirmed prosecutors would not oppose his appeal.
The referendum on reinstallation of hanging will never happen, just as well, in a case like this, but there are a few people who I wouldnt mind being hung, like the geezer who gauged his girlfriends eyes out, and many more.
I still support the idea of the death sentence. I have never said it would be used in all cases. For me the death sentence should only be applied when guilty beyond all doubt i.e being caught in the act, pre-meditated sickening crimes.
DNA evidence, caught red handed, video evidence. These are all suitable scenarios for the death penalty. When it is impossible that the accused is innocent.
DNA 99.9% effective apparently. If this is the case lets have a period in jail whilst all appeals are carried out. If case still proven I think for the most heinous of crimes (Soham etc) then kill the b*stards. preferably after a good last kicking. If hanging not to be brought back at least take away their human rights and make prison hard for them. Not this cushy 3 meals a day, TV's etc
Spot on mate! The "politically correct" brigade are well on the way to ruining this country. In many cases, the offenders are treat far better than their victims. In their cells they have game boys or whatever they call them now, TV's, access to Gyms, free medical stuff, etc. F*ck them I say. I'd lock the guilty as hell feccers up for 23 hours a day and give them basic food rations. They shouldn't be punished by being sent down for an easy life. Human rights? Bollocks. What about the human rights of the people they have violated?
Bill, the bloke who gauged his girlfriends eyes out, did he use feeler gauges or a poker gauge? You'd better stick to cutting and pasting yesterdays papers, telling us what we already know, no spelling mistakes then. I know you'll feel like gouging my eyes out but I can't help it if I can't stand spelling mistakes, I blame the teachers.
It's a disgrace how easy jail is these days. From speaking to lads that have done time it's an absolute doddle, they make an absolute fortune by 'plugging' (up the bum) when they are expecting to get sent down,drugs, steroids etc and sell them in jail making a fortune. Loads of them have mobile phones in jail now so they have constant contact with the outside world so they can still arrange things from the outside and have their money sent into them. Some of the stories i've heard really left me gobsmacked, it really does sound like a canny life and I can understand why people who have nothing on the outside, commit crimes knowing they will get jail as they really will be better off in jail. It's certainly not a deterrent. I don't think I would be fully behind the death sentence on the use of DNA alone, there is always an explanation for that. 'the defendant had been to that place before', 'the defendant had handled that weapon before but sold it on' etc etc.
I am aware of that Connor, but if somebody is caught in the act then no matter how good the lawyer is that is 100% sure.
The death penalty is just wrong. If you can't see that, what about this kid? He'd be dead by now if we still had it. Cushy prison conditions and "human rights" are also way out of order. Make prison a punishment, by all means, but killing people isn't right because we have to differentiate ourselves from them and their crimes.
But that's what we are saying mate, the death penalty would not be used in all cases. Very rarely probably and only in cases when it can be proven beyond all doubt. Caught in the act, video evidence. With regards to your last line there. All I can say is that if somebody killed a member of my family, I would want them dead. Not having them living a cushy life in jail because we have to be realistic thats what it is and especially when im grafting my arse off at work, with my taxes keeping them. No thank you.
I don't know how you can argue this, Safc83. You have to prove any crime "beyond all reasonable doubt" and then you apply the punishment. You can't, in legal terms, say that one murder is "worse" than another. You either string people up or you don't. I say don't...
I think I've said this before on here a few times, but I don't think it could ever be right that the state should be given control over whether somebody lives or dies. Even taking away the possible errors in human judgement as shown here, killing someone for revenge can never morally be the answer.
I am giving reasons but I don't even think your listening or prepared to understand any point of view but your own. I would say that pre-meditated murder is worse than say for instance getting involved in a street fight and kicking the victim to death, in a heat of the moment killing. You may not agree but I think I am at least putting forward a valid argument.
Again mate, that is your opinion and I do understand your thinking about it being morally wrong as in it makes you as bad as them sort of thing. For me though serial killers like Peter Sutcliffe and Fred West......................... hang the bast**ds
apart from the states in the us where they knock people off with relative enthusiasm (hello, texas), it costs more to put someone to death (endless appeals, all the making certain you would need to put someone to death, for fear of killing someone like the above) than it does to incarcerate them for life. even if you aren't morally opposed to the death penalty, it doesn't make sense.
Sorry Safc83, but I disagree. If I kick someone to death in a street fight I'm likely to go down for manslaughter. Not a hanging offence. If I plan to, and subsequently succeed in, murdering someone I'll go down for murder. A hanging offence. The issue is that if I get sent down for a murder I didn't do and get hanged, there's no bringing me back. And if if I'm convicted of murder I get the penalty for murder. You don't evaluate it in terms of "nastiness" or the outrage it causes society. It's a crime and there is a price to pay if you commit it. That much we agree one. I just don't agree that death is the right price, even for scum like Ian Brady, Anders Breivik, etc.
That's an interesting point and something that I wasn't aware of. Ok mate, both sides have been explained enough now. Are we ok to agree to disagree at this point?
