Katie Rough killing: Girl, 16, given life sentence for manslaughter of seven-year-old in York park

A teenager who killed a seven-year-old girl in a park has been given a life sentence and ordered to be detained for a minimum of five years by a judge who said it was a "truly exceptional case".

Katie Rough died after she was smothered by the 16-year-old girl, who cannot be named and was 15 at the time, and then slashed with a Stanley knife in a park in York, in January.

The defendant, who admitted manslaughter due to diminished responsibility at a previous hearing, appeared by video-link at Leeds Crown Court as Katie's family looked on from the jury box.

The teenager sat with her head down, clutching a soft toy, throughout the hearing.

She was flanked on screen by a court usher and a youth team leader who confirmed the girl's name when she was asked to identify herself by the judge, Mr Justice Soole.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/katie-rough-killing-girl-16-given-life-sentence-manslaughter/

Poor little Katie, how horrible.

The girl who murdered heris obviously mentally ill, but life is the right sentence.

What I don't understand is if she's given life, why is there a minimal sentence of 5 years. Does this mean she can appeal after that time.

I thought it was widely known who Katies killer was...maybe it was just over the internet and not in the papers.

magica wrote:Poor little Katie, how horrible.

The girl who murdered heris obviously mentally ill, but life is the right sentence.

What I don't understand is if she's given life, why is there a minimal sentence of 5 years.  Does this mean she can appeal after that time.

It means she will be considered for parole or release under licence after 5 years.....

Lord Foul wrote:

magica wrote:Poor little Katie, how horrible.

The girl who murdered heris obviously mentally ill, but life is the right sentence.

What I don't understand is if she's given life, why is there a minimal sentence of 5 years.  Does this mean she can appeal after that time.

It means she will be considered for parole or release under licence after 5 years.....

I hope that doesn't happen,life should mean life not 5 years.

magica wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

It means she will be considered for parole or release under licence after 5 years.....

I hope that doesn't happen,life should mean life not 5 years.

Mags, don't you think when a child or young person kills they should be looked at differently than when an adult kills?

they will look at her mental state to see if its improved etc...

remeber she has mental issues that need addressing

the law isnt, nor should it be "one size fits all"

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:

I hope that doesn't happen,life should mean life not 5 years.

Mags, don't you think when a child or young person kills they should be looked at differently than when an adult kills?

No, murder is murder imo Syl. That little Katy won't grow up as this girl will.

They know what murder is at that age.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:

I hope that doesn't happen,life should mean life not 5 years.

Mags, don't you think when a child or young person kills they should be looked at differently than when an adult kills?

You've got to weigh up the risk to the public, I guess.   Too many nutters have been let out only to kill again.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Mags, don't you think when a child or young person kills they should be looked at differently than when an adult kills?

You've got to weigh up the risk to the public, I guess.   Too many nutters have been let out only to kill again.

Thankfully children who deliberately kill are few and far between.
I cant think of any in the UK who have been released and have gone on to kill again.
I think Cass mentioned Mary Bell earlier in the thread. She was released and went on to have a family and has never been in any further trouble.

Its obvious that Venables is still a danger...I don't know who came to the conclusion that both he and Thompson should be released at the same time.....they obviously didn't progress at the same rate in prison

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


You've got to weigh up the risk to the public, I guess.   Too many nutters have been let out only to kill again.

Thankfully children who deliberately  kill are few and far between.
I cant think of any in the UK who have been released and have gone on to kill again.
I think Cass mentioned Mary Bell earlier in the thread. She was released and went on to have a family and has never been in any further trouble.

Its obvious that Venables is still a danger...I don't know who came to the conclusion that both he and Thompson should be released at the same time.....they obviously didn't progress at the same rate  in prison

Mary Bell had one daughter. I wonder how she felt when her daughter was the same age as the poor boys she killed. Any remorse? Probably not.

One child still makes a family...presumably she had a partner also at one point. She is now a grandmother.

Who knows how she felt.....I imagine she must have come to terms in some way with what she did for her to be able to live any sort of productive life afterwards.
She was still a young woman when she was released from prison after serving 12 years.

Syl wrote:One child still makes a family...presumably she had a partner also at one point. She is now a grandmother.

Who knows how she felt.....I imagine she must have come to terms in some way with what she did for her to be able to live any sort of productive life afterwards.
She was still a young woman when she was released from prison after serving 12 years.

They're hardly the Waltons.

Are most people really bothered if those who kill children go on to lead "productive lives", whatever that means? I don't think they are. They don't want them to be content and happy do they? The fact that they don't break the law again is neither here nor there, despite the claims that that's what's important. They want them to pay for what they did and be unhappy.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:One child still makes a family...presumably she had a partner also at one point. She is now a grandmother.

Who knows how she felt.....I imagine she must have come to terms in some way with what she did for her to be able to live any sort of productive life afterwards.
She was still a young woman when she was released from prison after serving 12 years.

They're hardly the Waltons.

Are most people really bothered if those who kill children go on to lead "productive lives", whatever that means? I don't think they are. They don't want them to be content and happy do they? The fact that they don't break the law again is neither here nor there, despite the claims that that's what's important. They want them to pay for what they did and be unhappy.

I think opinion is split on what should happen to children who murder, but one size doesn't fit all.
Surely IF they are going to be released its in societies interest that they have been rehabilitated enough to not harm anyone else's kids.
Wishing unhappiness on them after they have served their time doesn't help anyone...unhappiness breeds unhappiness....so their own kids (if they have any) will be damaged too...its a vicious circle.

Mary Bell had a horrendous childhood....the parents of kids who kill are probably as much to blame as the kids who DO kill.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're hardly the Waltons.

Are most people really bothered if those who kill children go on to lead "productive lives", whatever that means? I don't think they are. They don't want them to be content and happy do they? The fact that they don't break the law again is neither here nor there, despite the claims that that's what's important. They want them to pay for what they did and be unhappy.

I think opinion is split on what should happen to children who murder, but one size doesn't fit all.
Surely IF they are going to be released its in societies interest that they have been rehabilitated enough to not harm anyone else's kids.
Wishing unhappiness on them after they have served their time doesn't help anyone...unhappiness breeds unhappiness....so their own kids (if they have any) will be damaged too...its a vicious circle.

Mary Bell had a horrendous childhood....the parents of kids who kill are probably as much to blame as the kids who DO kill.

I've never understood why having a bad childhood means that someone will kill a child. There appears to be no connection to me. I'm surprised Mary Bell had a child after what she did, or that she was allowed to keep it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think opinion is split on what should happen to children who murder, but one size doesn't fit all.
Surely IF they are going to be released its in societies interest that they have been rehabilitated enough to not harm anyone else's kids.
Wishing unhappiness on them after they have served their time doesn't help anyone...unhappiness breeds unhappiness....so their own kids (if they have any) will be damaged too...its a vicious circle.

Mary Bell had a horrendous childhood....the parents of kids who kill are probably as much to blame as the kids who DO kill.

I've never understood why having a bad childhood means that someone will kill a child. There appears to be no connection to me. I'm surprised Mary Bell had a child after what she did, or that she was allowed to keep it.

I don't think anyone ever says that having a bad childhood means you go on to kill a child.
Millions of kids have bad childhoods and go on to be kind adults and good parents....very few children actually kill other children no matter how bad the childhood is.

This is from Mary Bells online wiki...

"Independent accounts from family members strongly suggest that Marys prostitute mother Betty had more than once attempted to kill Mary and make her death look accidental during the first few years of her life. Her family was suspicious when Mary "fell" from a window, and when she "accidentally" consumed sleeping pills. On one such occasion, an independent witness saw Betty giving the pills to her daughter as sweets.[2]
Mary herself says she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse, her mother forcing her from the age of four to engage in sexual acts with men."

It makes sense that kids who do kill haven't been shown kindness, love and respect as they have grown up.
There will always be the exception to the rule, but a loving home has les chance of producing a disturbed kid than a horrible one.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


You've got to weigh up the risk to the public, I guess.   Too many nutters have been let out only to kill again.

Thankfully children who deliberately  kill are few and far between.
I cant think of any in the UK who have been released and have gone on to kill again.
I think Cass mentioned Mary Bell earlier in the thread. She was released and went on to have a family and has never been in any further trouble.

Its obvious that Venables is still a danger...I don't know who came to the conclusion that both he and Thompson should be released at the same time.....they obviously didn't progress at the same rate  in prison

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that a child's thought processes aren't geared up to consequences in the way an adults is?    Children can be incredibly cruel, and rarely think of the pain they're inflicting.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've never understood why having a bad childhood means that someone will kill a child. There appears to be no connection to me. I'm surprised Mary Bell had a child after what she did, or that she was allowed to keep it.

I don't think anyone ever says that having a bad childhood means you go on to kill a child.
Millions of kids have bad childhoods and go on to be kind adults and good parents....very few children actually kill other children no matter how bad the childhood is.

This is from Mary Bells online wiki...

"Independent accounts from family members strongly suggest that Marys prostitute mother Betty had more than once attempted to kill Mary and make her death look accidental during the first few years of her life. Her family was suspicious when Mary "fell" from a window, and when she "accidentally" consumed sleeping pills. On one such occasion, an independent witness saw Betty giving the pills to her daughter as sweets.[2]
Mary herself says she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse, her mother forcing her from the age of four to engage in sexual acts with men."

It makes sense that kids who do kill haven't been shown kindness, love and respect as they have grown up.
There will always be the exception to the rule, but a loving home has les chance of producing a disturbed kid than a horrible one.

I also read that she made money from a book which was written about her being a "victim". I wonder if her victims were mentioned in that book.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think anyone ever says that having a bad childhood means you go on to kill a child.
Millions of kids have bad childhoods and go on to be kind adults and good parents....very few children actually kill other children no matter how bad the childhood is.

This is from Mary Bells online wiki...

"Independent accounts from family members strongly suggest that Marys prostitute mother Betty had more than once attempted to kill Mary and make her death look accidental during the first few years of her life. Her family was suspicious when Mary "fell" from a window, and when she "accidentally" consumed sleeping pills. On one such occasion, an independent witness saw Betty giving the pills to her daughter as sweets.[2]
Mary herself says she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse, her mother forcing her from the age of four to engage in sexual acts with men."

It makes sense that kids who do kill haven't been shown kindness, love and respect as they have grown up.
There will always be the exception to the rule, but a loving home has les chance of producing a disturbed kid than a horrible one.

I also read that she made money from a book which was written about her being a "victim". I wonder if her victims were mentioned in that book.

I haven't read it.

I find it in bad taste when people make money out of the misery they have caused.....so maybe it would be better if she hadn't mentioned them.
I'm not excusing what she did....it was utterly horrific.
Trying to understand why a child acts the way it does is not lessening the crime.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I also read that she made money from a book which was written about her being a "victim". I wonder if her victims were mentioned in that book.

I haven't read it.

I find it in bad taste when people make money out of the misery they have caused.....so maybe it would be better if she hadn't mentioned them.
I'm not excusing what she did....it was utterly horrific.
Trying to understand why a child acts the way it does is not lessening the crime.

The book was only written because she was "famous" for what she did though. If she was paid for her contribution, she did profit from her crime.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I haven't read it.

I find it in bad taste when people make money out of the misery they have caused.....so maybe it would be better if she hadn't mentioned them.
I'm not excusing what she did....it was utterly horrific.
Trying to understand why a child acts the way it does is not lessening the crime.

The book was only written because she was "famous" for what she did though. If she was paid for her contribution, she did profit from her crime.

She probably was paid...and its wrong of course.

I have just checked...Mary Bell has never actually written a book herself but she was paid for her contribution in one that was written about her.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The book was only written because she was "famous" for what she did though. If she was paid for her contribution, she did profit from her crime.

She probably was paid...and its wrong of course.

I have just checked...Mary Bell has never actually written a book herself but she was paid for her contribution in one that was written about her.

Yes - that's what I said.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thankfully children who deliberately  kill are few and far between.
I cant think of any in the UK who have been released and have gone on to kill again.
I think Cass mentioned Mary Bell earlier in the thread. She was released and went on to have a family and has never been in any further trouble.

Its obvious that Venables is still a danger...I don't know who came to the conclusion that both he and Thompson should be released at the same time.....they obviously didn't progress at the same rate  in prison

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that a child's thought processes aren't geared up to consequences in the way an adults is?    Children can be incredibly cruel, and rarely think of the pain they're inflicting.

Cries Unheard by Gitta Sereny.
It’s an excellent book but left me emotionally exhausted.

I truly believe that Mary snapped because of abuse by her mother. I don’t think she was born a psychopath or sociopath like other killers, whether children or adults. That’s why she was able to go on without further trouble. In this case, rehabilitation did Work.

I don't think she "snapped". She killed one boy, and then another one more than two months later. She also mutilated the body of Brian Howe, her second victim.

Bell's mate got away with it of course.