cleopatra2

His sentence was to a maximum term of life . With a minimum of 3 years to be served.. Not a maximum of 3 years. The term discretionary in this context relates to the issue that the court has the discretion to apply a life sentence for the act committed.

He was sentenced to life around 1999/2000 to run for a minimum of 3 years. The minimum term of 3 years has passed allowing him to be considered for parole. The actual life sentence has not expired. The 3 years was a minimum not a maximum.

No . The sentence was to be for a minimum of 3 years. If it was only required to last for 3 years then it would not be a life sentence.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Since the council could not locate or supply any legal documents to support the fact of a shared path, it is difficult to understand how the judge arrived at this conclusion.

In the policy linked to , page 27 section 8 if state facilities are available then private hospital are excluded. ( Paraphrased)

Your pension provider will ask for your NINO . The pension provider will then obtain your Tax Code from the HMRC.

I assume since you previously worked in the UK , you have a NI number , and a personal tax code from your time in the UK. The NI number will be linked to any personal tax code applicable.

Section 5 of the pension act places in law the weekly amount is based on date on reaching pension age. Section 15,16,17 gives further enhancements upon this weekly amount for deferring payment.

Your State pension weekly rate is determined by the date on reaching pension age , in your specific case this is 2023. In 2008 no eligibility to a pension and thus pension amount had been derived. Thus it can only be frozen from the date of eligibility.

My understanding of the term Civil Partner requires both persons to sign the civil partner register .

At 86 he would have qualified for state pension entitlement prior to 2016, thus the 2014 pension act does not apply. The contributions and benefit act would be the legislation to consult

A government occupational pension is termed as a government pension. As described in various DTT.

The term Government is ambiguous in this context. To some Government means the state pension. However if the person worked for a government department then they would receive a government pension ( private pension). The date of reaching pension age is important. If prior to April 2016 then the 2014 pension act does not apply and the previous rules are in play.

My understanding from the Pensions Act 2014. Is that the the pension amount is determined by the date of reaching pension age. Whilst receiving the pension payment can be deferred, any annual uplifting is dependant upon being a UK resident ( including the agreements). However the deferred pension will attract the percentage increase given for deferring the pension.

Like I posted earlier. There is a witness . who is identified in the police report but never contacted by the police, who was present with C Annesley immediately prior to her death. The witness confirms that C Annesley did not mix medication with alcohol.

I agree. The question arises was it correct to accept the assurance from Halls. Hypothetically if another actor handed Baldwin the gun and declared it cold would Baldwin have the gun rechecked or just accepted the statement as correct. Given that the armorer had already informed Baldwin that she was the only person responsible for the gun.

The overdose is pure speculation based upon Facebook posts sometime earlier before her death. There is a witness that is present prior to death who states that she did not mix. The police although identified the witness failed to interview him.

There is evidence of incomplete or non-existent investigations. C. Annesley declared as an overdose. Authorities failed to speak to the last known person to be with her just prior to her death. ( The RTP had already identified him ). This person has stated that when he left she was alive and healthy . Whilst in his presence she had not taken medication and alcohol together. The post morten was carried out late. No toxicology report carried out

Lt. Col. Chokchai Sutthimek , reported june 30th 2017 , in a publication i cannot link to due to forum rules

The police have previously acknowledged that they do not always hold investigations into foreigners deaths. IMO the authorities go for the easiest and convenient explanation.

If A Baldwin is correct to accept the statement from Halls that the gun was cold.Then Hall is responsible for checking the gun What the armorer did/didn't do is somewhat moot. It was Hall that declared the gun safe , If the armorer is guilty then A Baldwin was negligent in not getting the armorer assurance the gun was cold. Baldwin's negligence ( assuming he would have acted differently knowing the gun was hot), caused the death and injury of persons.

I am not sure how a plea deal would be of benefit. In Baldwin's indemnification complaint , Baldwin acknowledges that the armorer told him she is the person responsible for checking the gun. Thus did Hall have the authority to claim the gun cold , and Baldwin correct to accept his assurance.

The armorer did not hand the gun to A Baldwin . She advised that a replica should be used, but A Baldwin insisted on using a real gun.

If you do not wish to state that is fair enough. I don't think the bad reputation of the island emanates from Ian Yarwood or S.Buchanan. The reputation is a result of a botched murder investigation and crime scene preservation, or lack off.