, slightly odd, it may feel slightly odd, particularly in a case that inspired such emotions as this. what was particularly interesting, i thought, was the distinction between a whole life tariff, and a life sentence, which may be confusing to some. a whole life tariff is what it says. it is that you will spend the rest of your days, the rest of your time locked up in prison, until you die. a license, despite the name, in this country, in england and wales, means that there is a possibility of parole, at some point, in that sentence. you're not going to be locked up necessarily forever, you might well be, unless the parole board feel there is a good reason for deciding you are no longer a threat, you will stay in prison for the rest of your life, but at some point, within that process, you will be eligible to apply for parole, and in this case, as you have been hearing, 42 years, as a starting

point of 30. there is a very significant minimum term. that is what he will spend in jail, significant minimum term. that is what he will spend injail, meaning he will be an old man, if he is ever to be released. immediately after the judge had left, immediately after thejudge had left, police officers and the family were crying and hugging cosmo then those 42 years is the meaning of some kind ofjustice.— those 42 years is the meaning of some kind ofjustice. some kind of “ustice. thank you for that, mark. — some kind ofjustice. thank you for that, mark. just _ some kind ofjustice. thank you for that, mark. just marking _ some kind ofjustice. thank you for that, mark. just marking your- some kind ofjustice. thank you for that, mark. just marking your card | that, mark. just marking your card if you're watching at home, there is a live pictures from manchester crown court, where we have just heard that sentencing. 0ur correspondent is there, we will be back with rowan in a moment, back to daniel sanford for a reaction on what my problem is talking about which is the sentence, of 42 years. just before we get into that,

interesting the contrast between the uk and the us, of course. we have both covered big court cases in the us, where there are cameras in, and it is much more recent, and the remarks from thejudge it is much more recent, and the remarks from the judge are quite different in the uk, much more informal and asking questions and going off script, and that doesn't happen so much in the uk, itjust struck me as quite different. daniel, your thoughts and reflections having listened into that sentencing.— reflections having listened into that sentencina. ~ , . that sentencing. when the sentencing remarks made — that sentencing. when the sentencing remarks made it _ that sentencing. when the sentencing remarks made it is _ that sentencing. when the sentencing remarks made it is quite _ that sentencing. when the sentencing remarks made it is quite a _ that sentencing. when the sentencing remarks made it is quite a formal- remarks made it is quite a formal process, lots of user—friendly language in there but it is quite a formal process and dine in quite a dispassionate way. there may be some more abrupt exchanges earlier that we were hearing about when she was questioning some of the army is being made by the defence but when it comes to passing sentence that is

donein it comes to passing sentence that is done in airformal and dispassionate way. we talk about aggravating and mitigating circumstances. getting are getting are things that might make the sentence shorter because i might have been a reason why the crime was committed or why the season —— make sentence should be shorter, aggravating circumstances are ones which make things worse. they just decided are ones which make things worse. theyjust decided there were basically no mitigating circumstances in this case. he was a hit man who had gone out to kill somebody and there was nothing mitigating about that. she did find some aggravating circumstances. essentially this was a very preplanned offence, he had gone out with not one but two guns, so the preplanned nature of that she felt was even more preplanned than a normal firearms was even more preplanned than a normalfirearms murder, it wasn't just that somebody was carrying a gun but they had set out with a plan to use it and then critically, this mass of the aggravating circumstance was when this hit had gone wrong,

this attempted execution had gone wrong thomas cashman ended up firing the gun into a family home, as a woman was trying to close the door on him, and that is what has bump this up from this 30—year starting point from a minimum term up to that 42 minimum term which is very, very high, for a single murder. yes it is the murder of a child but as a judge explained, she wasn't really sentencing on the basis of that, on it being the deliberate murder of a child so that is a very stiff sentence. the parole board is what comes into play in 42 years' time, 41.5 years when you take into account the time thomas cashman has already served in prison because the parole board will be asked to decide whether or not it is safe for thomas cashman to be released and that will be the decision they have to make, to keep the public save, is it possible for him to be released?

some of these cases are so high profile and so notorious that the parole board is watched very carefully at that moment of making that decision. it is quite a complex process with psychiatrists and psychologists and prison officers giving evidence to the parole board, and we are starting to see that in a public parole hearings were seen at the moment, starting to understand better what that process is and there is no guarantee that in 41.5 years thomas cashman will be on parole. he can go on being refused parole. he can go on being refused parole again and again and end up dying in prison. there is a very real possibility of that. at the same time the idea is that there is a possibility in this country that unless you have committed the worst of the worst of the worst murders that it of the worst of the worst murders thatitis of the worst of the worst murders that it is possible to be released and the parole board will be thinking about that sometime in the 20 605. , . ., ., ., .,

20 605. one piece of “argon i want to ick u- 20 605. one piece of “argon i want to pick up h 20 605. one piece of “argon i want to pick up on, this _ 20 605. one piece of jargon i want to pick up on, this category - 20 605. one piece of jargon i want to pick up on, this category a2 - to pick up on, this category a2 that was used by the judge. to pick up on, this category a2 that was used by thejudge. ijust to pick up on, this category a2 that was used by the judge. ijust want to add that i may have to interrupt you at any point, so that you know and people at home though, we are told that the family have filed out of the courtroom itself and you can see that we have our cameras there on the to the court, and when they come forward to those microphones if they decide to say something or indeed of the police do instead, we will cut straight to that and i will have to rudely interrupt daniel back at the moment, we believe they are still inside. let's go back to daniel. just talk us through that categorisation.— daniel. just talk us through that categorisation. when 'udges are consideringfi categorisation. when judges are considering sentences _ categorisation. when judges are considering sentences in - categorisation. when judges are considering sentences in these i considering sentences in these cases, these major crimes like murder or terrorist offences, they are working from a grid to try to work out what the minimum term

should be the sentence should be in the cases where it is not a life sentence. you have essentially got these categories, ai, sentence. you have essentially got these categories, a1, a2, and it is about the seriousness of the offending and other factors which need to be taken into account. in this case this is the top and seriousness of offending but not the top end seriousness in terms of other factors being taken top end seriousness in terms of otherfactors being taken into account. so you can imagine the sort of really, really deliberate murder of really, really deliberate murder of the absolute worst kind that gets you up into the ai category and that wasn't quite there so she is a city working off of a grid to work out the starting point for that minimum term, before considering these aggravating and mitigating circumstances. that is all there in black and white on the website of the sentencing guidelines council.

back to our corresponding outside manchester crown court, accurately. just update us with the latest details. —— our corresponding outside manchester crown court, rowan. ., ., ., ., ., rowan. the emotion around what has ha--ened rowan. the emotion around what has happened today. _ rowan. the emotion around what has happened today, olivia's _ rowan. the emotion around what has happened today, olivia's mother- rowan. the emotion around what has happened today, olivia's mother was| happened today, olivia's mother was crying, some of the police officers were in tears. clearly extremely emotional over this 42 year sentence handed down and you have to understand what this means that the one involved in the case. i spoke to the senior investigating officer mark baker who said this was one of the most difficult cases they had dealt with in his 30 odd years career at merseyside police and what is meant for the local community. this has been devastating for the family but also for the community of dovecote, which was important for them and their relationship with the police. merseyside police worked extremely hard in the community, and

especially that key witness who was key to getting this conviction today but also what you heard from the judge was the relentless, ruthless nature of this attack, the fact that the gunman had stopped for even a second when standing outside the house of the olivia pratt—korbel family, but he paid no regard to the fact that there was a family behind the door and fired a shot that injured olivia fatally. and today you saw from the judge how seriously she took all of that with the uplift she took all of that with the uplift she gave to the sentence for thomas cashman from the 30 year minimum, a 42 year minimum tariff before he can even be considered for parole. that will mean he is in his mid—70s before he can even be considered for release. fir before he can even be considered for release. , before he can even be considered for release. .,, ., before he can even be considered for release. , ., ., release. or those who have tuned in recently given _ release. or those who have tuned in recently given the _ release. or those who have tuned in recently given the news _ release. or those who have tuned in recently given the news of _ release. or those who have tuned in recently given the news of that - release. or those who have tuned in recently given the news of that 42 l recently given the news of that 42 year sentence just coming through, you just remind us what happened on that night? you just remind us what happened on that niuht? , , .,, you just remind us what happened on that niuht? , , ~ , that night? yes, this was august 22

last ear. that night? yes, this was august 22 last year. thomas _ that night? yes, this was august 22 last year. thomas cashman - that night? yes, this was august 22 last year. thomas cashman was - last year. thomas cashman was relentlessly pursuing his intended target, convicted drug dealer, joseph nee. asjoseph nee walked down the street in liverpool where olivia lived, gun man, thomas cashman fired atjoseph nee and hit him, then he stood over him, we have seen cctv footage where he attempted to fire at them again hoping to give an ethical shot but thomas cashman's gunjammed allowing an ethical shot but thomas cashman's gun jammed allowing joseph nee to get up and run towards olivia pratt—korbel�*s family home. olivia's mother heard the commotion and opened the door to find out what was happening, joseph nee ran towards the front door and tried to force his way into the family home. thomas cashman ran afterjoseph nee, pulled out a second down and stood in front of olivia's front door, fired and instead of hitting joseph nee, the bullet went straight to the front door, through gerald kobel�*s hand,

she was fighting to close the front door, and fatally hit olivia. she was rushed to hospital and died within one hour at alder hey children's hospital. thomas cashman then even hysteria inside the house put his arm around the front door and fired again before making his escape. he was subsequently arrested but denied any involvement in that shooting. he was then put on trial at manchester crown court for three and a half weeks and was found guilty of all five charges against him including the murder of olivia and the wounding of her mother and the attempted murder ofjoseph nee, and two firearms charges and today we had sentencing for all of those offences. he was sentenced on each offences. he was sentenced on each offence but the sentences run concurrently so they run at the same time and the longest sentence he was given was for the murder of olivia, the 42 year minimum sentence we heard thejudge the 42 year minimum sentence we heard the judge announced today. thank you very much for that, rowan,

i know that you will stay there and keep an eye on things for us. that is the door of manchester crown court. as soon as the police officers dude come out of those doors we will interrupt whatever we're doing and talking about and come those pictures, to hear what they have to say, if they do choose to say anything, of course. we have already heard the victim impact statements. they were incredibly powerful and really quite upsetting, if i'm being honest, to listen to, with many people in court in tears, as the family of olivia were giving their statement about the impact on their statement about the impact on their lives. and i don't know the state of the family right now, and imagine what they are feeling and going through, and they may well decide to say something publicly or they may leave that to the two police officers. our corresponding rowan is standing by and will alert

us as soon as we get any more information. if you just us as soon as we get any more information. if youjustjoining us as soon as we get any more information. if you justjoining us, we want to take a moment to replay and listen to the moment that thomas cashman's sentence was pronounced in court. ., ., ., ., court. count one for the murder of olivia pratt-korbel _ court. count one for the murder of olivia pratt-korbel the _ court. count one for the murder of olivia pratt-korbel the sentence i olivia pratt— korbel the sentence will be _ olivia pratt—korbel the sentence will be life imprisonment, the minimum _ will be life imprisonment, the minimum term 42 years less the time the defendant has spent on remand. one can _ the defendant has spent on remand. one can do. — the defendant has spent on remand. one can do, the attempted murder of joseph— one can do, the attempted murder of joseph nee, the sentence is life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years _ imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years all_ imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years. all camp three, wounding general— 22 years. all camp three, wounding general kobel with intent to do grievous— general kobel with intent to do grievous bodily harm to another comedy— grievous bodily harm to another comedy sentence is ten years imprisonment. oil counts fourand imprisonment. oil counts four and five, _ imprisonment. oil counts four and five. the _ imprisonment. oil counts fourand five, the firearms offences, the sentence — five, the firearms offences, the sentence is 18 years imprisonment on each _ sentence is 18 years imprisonment on each all— sentence is 18 years imprisonment on each. all those sentences will be served _ each. all those sentences will be served concurrently meaning the shortest —

served concurrently meaning the shortest period that the defendant will be _ shortest period that the defendant will be required to sell before he can be _ will be required to sell before he can be considered for early release from _ can be considered for early release from the _ can be considered for early release from the sentence of life imprisonment, is 42 years, less the 182 days _ imprisonment, is 42 years, less the 182 days he — imprisonment, is 42 years, less the 182 days he has served on remand. after— 182 days he has served on remand. after he _ 182 days he has served on remand. after he has— 182 days he has served on remand. after he has served that minimum term, _ after he has served that minimum term, he — after he has served that minimum term, he can only be released if the parole _ term, he can only be released if the parole board decide that is appropriate. he would then remain on licence _ appropriate. he would then remain on licence for— appropriate. he would then remain on licence for the remainder of his life _ licence for the remainder of his life. . . , licence for the remainder of his life. ., ., , ., ., life. that was the moment that the sentence was _ life. that was the moment that the sentence was handed _ life. that was the moment that the sentence was handed down - life. that was the moment that the sentence was handed down by - life. that was the moment that the sentence was handed down by the| sentence was handed down by the judge. there were a few interesting remarks to pick out from the judge's statement. the first was when she mentioned olivia and the hope that she would notjust be remembered for that night and what happened, but of course for her life and what she brought to her family. course for her life and what she brought to herfamily. we heard earlier in our coverage about some of the recollections and the character of olivia. her mum talking

about her favourite memories of her, and the kind of young girl she was and the kind of young girl she was and it is always important to keep that front and centre and we have been trying to reflect that in our coverage this afternoon, albeit of course the coverage is about the sentencing of thomas cashman, i hope that we managed to reflect also the life of olivia and the importance of her to herfamily. one of the life of olivia and the importance of her to her family. one of the other interesting moments of the sentencing, thejudge picking up the bravery of one of the witnesses. i want to go through that with mark easton. this became fundamental and crucial to this case, mark. it is crucial to this case, mark. it is the kind of— crucial to this case, mark. it is the kind of omerta _ crucialto this case, mark. it 3 the kind of omerta that surrounds drugs gangs that is the hardest thing for the police to break and to get somebody prepared to prosecute against, somebody of the violence of thomas cashman. so, they were desperate, after the tragic incident, to find anybody in

liverpool who would be prepared to testify against some of the most feared individuals in the city. there was a woman who had apparently had at one stage a relationship with thomas cashman, who agreed that she would testify against him, despite the enormous risks that that would imply for her. she gave her evidence behind a screen, and she said there is no such thing as a grass, when it involves a nine—year—old girl. the court was absolutely silent as she gave her evidence from the witness box. but that woman, her life will have been completely and utterly changed as a consequence of the decision that she took to give evidence against thomas cashman. she will almost certainly have to go into a witness protection programme, probably for the rest of her life. effectively becoming somebody else. it is difficult to imagine the impact that would have a new. and i

think the courage that that woman showed is perhaps one of one of the rare positive things that has emerged from this awful crime, that there are people who are prepared to stand up for what is right and put their own personal safety, their lives at risk, in order to get justice done, and to bring some form of closure to the family of nine—year—old olivia. of closure to the family of nine-year-old olivia. that culture of silence. _ nine-year-old olivia. that culture of silence. it _ nine-year-old olivia. that culture of silence, it is _ nine-year-old olivia. that culture of silence, it is an _ nine-year-old olivia. that culture of silence, it is an age-old - nine-year-old olivia. that culture of silence, it is an age-old battle | of silence, it is an age—old battle for the police, isn't it, and a tricky one to break. it for the police, isn't it, and a tricky one to break.- for the police, isn't it, and a tricky one to break. it is tricky. there are _ tricky one to break. it is tricky. there are a _ tricky one to break. it is tricky. there are a sense _ tricky one to break. it is tricky. there are a sense of— tricky one to break. it is tricky. there are a sense of people i tricky one to break. it is tricky. | there are a sense of people live tricky one to break. it is tricky. - there are a sense of people live on the edges of society, that you do not ever grass on your mates or people like you, so there is a powerful, pervading in that. but

with the kind of people we are talking about in this case, these are people who retain a grudge. if somebody says something which leads to undermining their illicit drugs operations, they will not give a second thought to meting out their own form ofjustice. that is how they can keep going, a key part of they can keep going, a key part of the operation as we had during this court case and during some of the statements earlier in this programme, about the importance of violence to these gangs. if you like, it is the way that it makes business sense for them to stop unless you are prepared to mete out serious violence it is difficult to operate in this territory. the bravery of this woman, whose name we could not say even if we knew it, it really does to some extent, restore your faith in really does to some extent, restore

yourfaith in human nature, ifeel. and it is also a sign that when people do take this kind of risks, you can break the criminal gangs, and break their code of silence. i can act mark, thank you so much for that. back to manchester crown court and rowan bridge. we are waiting for the families or the police potentially to come out and stand just behind where you are standing, where the microphones are. i would not be surprised _ where the microphones are. i would not be surprised if— where the microphones are. i would not be surprised if we _ where the microphones are. i would not be surprised if we are _ where the microphones are. i would not be surprised if we are from - where the microphones are. i would | not be surprised if we are from mark baker, _ not be surprised if we are from mark baker, the _ not be surprised if we are from mark baker, the senior investigating officer— baker, the senior investigating officer in— baker, the senior investigating officer in the case. he was here on thursday— officer in the case. he was here on thursday as — officer in the case. he was here on thursday as he has been through much of the _ thursday as he has been through much of the trial— thursday as he has been through much of the trial when there was a verdict — of the trial when there was a verdict delivered and we asked if he wanted _ verdict delivered and we asked if he wanted to— verdict delivered and we asked if he wanted to say anything and he was not speaking at the time so i expect we will— not speaking at the time so i expect we will hear from mark baker, the senior— we will hear from mark baker, the senior investigating officer in the case and — senior investigating officer in the case and it— senior investigating officer in the case and it is possible we hear from olivia's _ case and it is possible we hear from olivia's family, from her dad and her mum's— olivia's family, from her dad and her mum's side of the family who

were _ her mum's side of the family who were both — her mum's side of the family who were both in court today with his mum, brotherand sisterand were both in court today with his mum, brother and sister and other family— mum, brother and sister and other family members who have been here throughout— family members who have been here throughout much of the three and a half weeks — throughout much of the three and a half weeks of the trial, and again today— half weeks of the trial, and again today for— half weeks of the trial, and again today for the sentencing. we saw olivia's _ today for the sentencing. we saw olivia's mum arriving clutching a teddy _ olivia's mum arriving clutching a teddy bear that had been made out of the pyjamas that olivia pratt—korbel war. the pyjamas that olivia pratt—korbel war~ it _ the pyjamas that olivia pratt—korbel war~ it has _ the pyjamas that olivia pratt—korbel war. it has been and emotional, difficult — war. it has been and emotional, difficult day. i suspect they will be pleased with the sentence. it is an acutely— be pleased with the sentence. it is an acutely stiff sentence. thomas cashman— an acutely stiff sentence. thomas cashman is— an acutely stiff sentence. thomas cashman is 34. he will be in his mid-70s— cashman is 34. he will be in his mid—70s before he is considered eligible — mid—70s before he is considered eligible for parole and then it will be up _ eligible for parole and then it will be up to— eligible for parole and then it will be up to the parole board to decide where _ be up to the parole board to decide where they— be up to the parole board to decide where they can release. he is facing a life _ where they can release. he is facing a life sentence for the murder of—year—old olivia pratt—korbel. rowan, — of—year—old olivia pratt—korbel. rowan, this has been an extraordinary case for so many reasons. it was since it was first in the public imagination if there were so many people with such

horror, that something like this could happen. and if you remember that, it was not the case that cashman was found straightaway. there was a hunt, and there was an awful period for the family of not knowing. it awful period for the family of not knowina. , , ., ., awful period for the family of not knowina. , . , , awful period for the family of not knowina. , y., ., , , ., knowing. it gives you a sense of the sense of revulsion _ knowing. it gives you a sense of the sense of revulsion that _ knowing. it gives you a sense of the sense of revulsion that was - knowing. it gives you a sense of the sense of revulsion that was over - sense of revulsion that was over this matter that merseyside police told me _ this matter that merseyside police told me that they were inundated with information and notjust told me that they were inundated with information and not just from the local— with information and not just from the local community but in fact from the local community but in fact from the criminal— the local community but in fact from the criminal underworld as well, who felt that— the criminal underworld as well, who felt that a _ the criminal underworld as well, who felt that a line had been crossed and in _ felt that a line had been crossed and in fact— felt that a line had been crossed and in fact the merseyside police chief— and in fact the merseyside police chief constable appealed directly to the criminal world, asking for information, saying that every line had been — information, saying that every line had been trust when it came to the death— had been trust when it came to the death of— had been trust when it came to the death of a — had been trust when it came to the death of a nine—year—old girl. crucial— death of a nine—year—old girl. crucial to— death of a nine—year—old girl. crucial to the case, as mark easton refer— crucial to the case, as mark easton refer to, _ crucial to the case, as mark easton refer to, was — crucial to the case, as mark easton refer to, was a key witness who gave evidence, _ refer to, was a key witness who gave evidence, who has been given lifelong — evidence, who has been given lifelong anonymity by the jet. she .ave lifelong anonymity by the jet. she gave evidence behind screens but she said that _ gave evidence behind screens but she said that she was still petrified of

thomas— said that she was still petrified of thomas cashman, but she was the one woman— thomas cashman, but she was the one woman who _ thomas cashman, but she was the one woman who let cashman directly to the crime — woman who let cashman directly to the crime. a lot of the case was built— the crime. a lot of the case was built around cctv footage, what you might _ built around cctv footage, what you might call _ built around cctv footage, what you might call circumstantial evidence but she _ might call circumstantial evidence but she was the one person you could link thomas— but she was the one person you could link thomas cashman directly to the murder— link thomas cashman directly to the murder because she overheard him talking _ murder because she overheard him talking about it. mark easton also referred _ talking about it. mark easton also referred to some of the sort of fear and intimidation that i was in the community when it came to this case and that— community when it came to this case and that is— community when it came to this case and that is true so for example, mark— and that is true so for example, mark baker, who led the inquiry, said that — mark baker, who led the inquiry, said that they sifted through 320 hours _ said that they sifted through 320 hours of— said that they sifted through 320 hours of cctv footage to build up thomas _ hours of cctv footage to build up thomas cashman's movements on this day of— thomas cashman's movements on this day of the _ thomas cashman's movements on this day of the murder. some of that, they had — day of the murder. some of that, they had to — day of the murder. some of that, they had to go to court to get court orders _ they had to go to court to get court orders to— they had to go to court to get court orders to force people to hand over the material, such was the fear of cooperating with police on the inquiry — cooperating with police on the inquiry. but they work really hard with the — inquiry. but they work really hard with the local community to build trust. _ with the local community to build trust. to— with the local community to build trust, to get people to come forward and to— trust, to get people to come forward and to give _ trust, to get people to come forward and to give them information and to -ive and to give them information and to give them _ and to give them information and to give them statements they could use in court _ give them statements they could use in court. certainly to the point

where — in court. certainly to the point where thomas cashman was arrested. that reassure people that made them feel that _ that reassure people that made them feel that the police were making progress — feel that the police were making progress and that led to others coming — progress and that led to others coming forward and being prepared to make statements and ultimately that meant _ make statements and ultimately that meant the cps felt they had enough of a case _ meant the cps felt they had enough of a case to bring against cashman and we _ of a case to bring against cashman and we saw— of a case to bring against cashman and we saw that conviction and ultimately the sentencing today. thank _ ultimately the sentencing today. thank you very much for that. we will be back with rowan bridge in manchester ahead of the expected statements. that is what we are waiting for, we are waiting for the family are perhaps the police to come out of court. of course there will be a period of reflection for them there just in what has happened, digesting that sentence, and consideration then about what to say publicly if indeed they do say anything, that may not necessarily happen but with the timeframe we cannot quite help you out there, either. they have been in court for a little while now. but we do not

have any firm timings. it has been an emotional day in court. as you can imagine those impact statements from the family of olivia, really harrowing, the sentence is being relayed byjudith moritz, our correspondent, they are really difficult to read let alone here in court. and people were in tears in court, listening to some of those messages and i willjust read one now, a bit of a warning, this is quite difficult to hear, butjust to give you a sense of what happened in court before the sentencing. judith moritz, who was there listening, pulled out this one line from olivia's mother, cheryl. and a warning, it is difficult to listen to. she said i cannot get over the fact that cashman continued to shoot after hearing the screams. i cannot

even think about rebuilding our lives without liv. that is olivia. so, really emotional afternoon in court. then we had emma orr for a part of proceedings, the judge where we learned the details. we knew that it was going to be a life sentence given the guilty verdicts and what they were for, but we got more details right at the end of the judge's sentencing statement, saying 42 years, and also sentence for other crimes that he committed, but those sentences run concurrently so not added together but all at the same time so effectively, 42 years is the sentence that he will receive, the minimum time people spendin receive, the minimum time people spend in prison, before the parole board will then consider whether he is released. no guarantee that he is released, after 42 years, but that

decision will be for the parole board way in the future. if he is released at that point he will spend the rest of his life licence and can be recalled any point. it is 42 years, less 182 days for time already served, slight technicality stop 42 years, a very significant sentence. and mark easton are home affairs editor is in the for us. just thinking about those impact statements. they are immensely powerful. you have been hearing what the court and the judge heard. powerful. you have been hearing what the court and thejudge heard. it will have moved everybody. quite interesting, as daniel was saying earlier, thejudge will interesting, as daniel was saying earlier, the judge will have set out the legal situation as she sees it in terms of the sentencing guidelines before today. but perhaps leaving just a few bits of her sentencing numbers, as it were,

until the very last minute, just in order to be able to take on board the impact statements and indeed the evidence given by the defence lawyer, and indeed the prosecuting lawyer. they were meeting in chambers and in court today. what i think is interesting, it is likely quite a positive thing. there has been lots of research over the last 30 years over whether impact statements when they are used by the victims of, particularly violent crimes, make any difference in general terms to the length of their sentence. does it go up or does it go down? there will be lots of papers all over the world looking at exactly this question. and the answer is, it doesn't appear to make any difference. in other words, the judges, having heard all of the evidence of the case, and having listened to the witnesses and in this case, the family and others, having heard all of the evidence,

they actually have, in a way, a profound understanding of the case themselves and therefore the impact statements are, in a way, a distillation of all that they have been hearing over the period of the trial, and therefore there is no real change. nevertheless, ithink, forthe real change. nevertheless, ithink, for the public outside, those reading on our life a jewel of the comments, watching thejudge making her remarks this afternoon, —— reading all of the comments, it is important that we see that link between the technical exercise of trying an individual for a between the technical exercise of trying an individualfor a crime, a statistic, if you like, in the criminaljournal, and the human story and i think that is what we have been able to get you today, in the course of what we have been hearing from their victim impact statements, you can come across the details of this case, if you have

recently, in a way, it gets an instant understanding of the sense of victimhood, of the pain and hurt that these crimes cause. even if, in the end, it is not going to sway the judge one way or the other, i think the process itself of saying what you want to say about the loss that you want to say about the loss that you have endured, is actually very important for ourjustice system. important for our justice system. thank important for ourjustice system. thank you very much for that, mark. we will take a look back at the events of that night now, we have covered in detail the sentencing and the events of this afternoon, and our reporter daniel savage will take us through what happened that night. ten o'clock at night, 22nd of august last year, a barely believable sequence of events that led to a nine—year—old girl being shot dead in her own home. a man called joseph nee is walking down the road but a

drug dealer is lying in wait for him, wanting him dead. joseph nee a zampa stand. the ground as he is repeatedly shot. armed with two guns, cashman closes in. he fires once more. then, the gunjammed. seeing a chance and desperate to escape, joseph nee flees for his life by heading for an open front door of a nearby house, pursued by the gunman. olivia pratt—korbel was inside. her mother had opened the door having heard the noise outside. she tried to stop the two range is getting in. olivia, frightened by the commission, had come downstairs and was fatally wounded as shots were fired through the front door. the man firing the gun was thomas cashman. he was arrested after a huge

manhunt.