Originally Posted by
Distant Voice
(2) Where after a guilty plea the prosecution and defence present an "agreed version" of the facts for the judge to sentence on, he/she may reject it if he/she thinks it is implausible and have his/her own investigation.
DV
To draw an analogy. Back in the day when someone was charged with murder, the DPP or the Attorney General had to approve any proposed plea to a lesser offence, for example manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. If the DPP or the Attorney General gave his approval, that was the basis of the case. I know of only one case where a Judge has refused to accept such lesser plea. That was the Yorkshire Ripper case, where Mr Justice Boreham refused to approve it. Ultimately there was a trial and Sutcliffe was convicted of murder.
When, in 1981, it was reported that the attorney general Sir Michael Havers had accepted the consensus of medical opinion that the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe should be allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, it was not a course of action attractive to the general public, who believed that Sutcliffe had "got away with it".
Nor did it appeal to the trial judge Sir Leslie Boreham, who has died aged 85. He thought that Sutcliffe might have deceived the doctors, and that the medical evidence should be tested by a jury. After several hours of legal argument, Havers changed his position, and the trial ended with Boreham sentencing Sutcliffe to 20 terms of life imprisonment, recommending he should serve at least 30 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/200...dianobituaries