Joby Barney and John James guilty of murdering Reginald Baker in Landford

Duo guilty of pensioner's murder

Joby Barney

John James

Reginald Baker

First published in News

TWO men have been jailed for life for the brutal murder of a frail pensioner who was tortured and beaten to death at his Landford home in September.

A jury of seven men and five women came to a verdict yesterday morning at end of the fourweek trial of Joby Barney, 25, and 19-year-old John James at Winchester Crown Court.

Reginald Baker, right, who was suffering from terminal cancer and has been described as ‘defenceless as a baby’, was found dead at his Beech Grange home on September 5.

He had suffered horrific injuries including a broken back and neck, 62 fractures to his ribs and extensive deep muscle bruising. The cartilage in his left ear had been smashed and he had stab wounds to the back of his hand and his face.

During the trial pathologist Dr Basil Purdue likened the multiple injuries suffered by the pensioner to those normally only seen in those who had been involved in traffic collisions.

Sentencing Barney to a minimum of 30 years and James 28, Judge John Royce said: “There is no escaping the fact that both of you willinglypursued this sickening, prolonged, callous and vicious attack before leaving this old man dying.

“Thereafter you went out for an evening’s drinking without, it would appear, a care in the world, certainly not a care for him.”

Related links

Barney, of Ringwood Road, Alderholt, and James, of London Road, Salisbury, admitted conspiracy to burgle but both denied murder, each blaming the other for inflicting the injuries that killed Mr Baker.

But the jury agreed with the prosecution’s case that the pair were acting together throughout and should be held equally responsible.

The court heard the they forced their way into Mr Baker’s home, looking for cash, and tortured him over a 40-minute period when they didn’t find what they were looking for.

Two other men Daniel Coker, 23, of London Road, and 19-year-old Trevor Gray, of The Friary, Salisbury, who both admitted manslaughter and conspiracy to burgle were waiting for them in a car parked nearby.

After the murder James went into a local shop to change the £80 in coins he’d taken from Mr Baker’s home into notes.

He and Barney got rid of the clothes they had been wearing and then went out drinking.

Coker and Gray are in custody and will be sentenced at a later date.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:28pm Wed 20 May 09

Jebus says...

Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you.
Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you. Jebus
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Wed 20 May 09

Jebus says...

Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you.
Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you. Jebus
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Wed 20 May 09

rich the stitch says...

Jebus wrote:
Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you.
Totally agree, scum like this should not be given any human rights in prison. The PC brigade who say otherwise should hang their heads in shame.
[quote][p][bold]Jebus[/bold] wrote: Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you.[/p][/quote]Totally agree, scum like this should not be given any human rights in prison. The PC brigade who say otherwise should hang their heads in shame. rich the stitch
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 20 May 09

Ken Hutchinson says...

It is very easy to afford Prisoners their basic human rights as per the Human Rights Act 1998 and still make Prison an unpleasant place to be. BASIC should be the operative word.
It is very easy to afford Prisoners their basic human rights as per the Human Rights Act 1998 and still make Prison an unpleasant place to be. BASIC should be the operative word. Ken Hutchinson
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Wed 20 May 09

Miles Way says...

Ken Hutchinson wrote:
It is very easy to afford Prisoners their basic human rights as per the Human Rights Act 1998 and still make Prison an unpleasant place to be. BASIC should be the operative word.
Agreed Ken, the next question is whether or not low-lifes like this should be imprisoned or put down.
5 against one 62 y/old frail pensioner..
[quote][p][bold]Ken Hutchinson[/bold] wrote: It is very easy to afford Prisoners their basic human rights as per the Human Rights Act 1998 and still make Prison an unpleasant place to be. BASIC should be the operative word.[/p][/quote]Agreed Ken, the next question is whether or not low-lifes like this should be imprisoned or put down. 5 against one 62 y/old frail pensioner.. Miles Way
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Wed 20 May 09

Ken Hutchinson says...

Miles - if Reginald Baker was my Grandad,Dad,Brother etc..I would be first in the queue to flick the switch.Would that act as a deterrent to other would be Murderers?I don't think so. It will only serve to eradicate that particular piece of vermin.
Miles - if Reginald Baker was my Grandad,Dad,Brother etc..I would be first in the queue to flick the switch.Would that act as a deterrent to other would be Murderers?I don't think so. It will only serve to eradicate that particular piece of vermin. Ken Hutchinson
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Wed 20 May 09

Miles Way says...

No it wouldn't Ken, however the point we're at with the justice system is that there is frankly no deterrent to murderers now - should they be incarcerated (in reasonable comfort) for life, no parole, or a few years as this lot will be or at some point, for certain crimes, should the ultimate penalty be applied?
There are many arguments both ways but most against seem based on what punishment is just in a modern, compassionate & civilised society - the difficulty for me is reprehensible scum like this, by their actions, have given up their right to live in such a society or to expect compassion in sentencing.
Maybe it would eradicate this vermin, that at least would be a start.
No it wouldn't Ken, however the point we're at with the justice system is that there is frankly no deterrent to murderers now - should they be incarcerated (in reasonable comfort) for life, no parole, or a few years as this lot will be or at some point, for certain crimes, should the ultimate penalty be applied? There are many arguments both ways but most against seem based on what punishment is just in a modern, compassionate & civilised society - the difficulty for me is reprehensible scum like this, by their actions, have given up their right to live in such a society or to expect compassion in sentencing. Maybe it would eradicate this vermin, that at least would be a start. Miles Way
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Wed 20 May 09

Kelsie says...

That is actually sick .... I am disgusted by that how the hell could 5 blokes do that 2 a poor defencless old man. I hope they get physically and mentally abused in prison ... SICK SICK SCUMMMMMMMM!!
That is actually sick .... I am disgusted by that how the hell could 5 blokes do that 2 a poor defencless old man. I hope they get physically and mentally abused in prison ... SICK SICK SCUMMMMMMMM!! Kelsie
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 20 May 09

Georgem says...

Jebus wrote:
Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you.
Can you please point to where I have defended these people? What you actually managed to do on the other thread was prove my exact point. Thanks for that. In future, maybe you could try and understand some of the more difficult concepts presented to you, rather than over-react like this and pretend the entire world is either exactly as you want it to be, or the exact opposite. It's an important component of adulthood.
[quote][p][bold]Jebus[/bold] wrote: Here you are Georgem, your latest poor little angels who must be given their full rights on the inside. These are the sort of people you are defending, good on you.[/p][/quote]Can you please point to where I have defended these people? What you actually managed to do on the other thread was prove my exact point. Thanks for that. In future, maybe you could try and understand some of the more difficult concepts presented to you, rather than over-react like this and pretend the entire world is either exactly as you want it to be, or the exact opposite. It's an important component of adulthood. Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Wed 20 May 09

Georgem says...

Ken Hutchinson wrote:
It is very easy to afford Prisoners their basic human rights as per the Human Rights Act 1998 and still make Prison an unpleasant place to be. BASIC should be the operative word.
Agreed. Ignore our blinkered, deluded, hard-of-thinking chum "Jebus" and his over-active imagination. I haven't in any way "defended" criminals. Asking that disabled people not be left to rot in their own filth for a year is hardly "defending criminals"
[quote][p][bold]Ken Hutchinson[/bold] wrote: It is very easy to afford Prisoners their basic human rights as per the Human Rights Act 1998 and still make Prison an unpleasant place to be. BASIC should be the operative word.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Ignore our blinkered, deluded, hard-of-thinking chum "Jebus" and his over-active imagination. I haven't in any way "defended" criminals. Asking that disabled people not be left to rot in their own filth for a year is hardly "defending criminals" Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Wed 20 May 09

Something to comment on says...

What's the betting on the fact that these guys already had a history of violence and theft. In certain parts of Europe around 65 years ago, 'undesirables' were dealt with in pretty harsh ways. Just an idea....
What's the betting on the fact that these guys already had a history of violence and theft. In certain parts of Europe around 65 years ago, 'undesirables' were dealt with in pretty harsh ways. Just an idea.... Something to comment on
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 20 May 09

Georgem says...

Miles Way wrote:
No it wouldn't Ken, however the point we're at with the justice system is that there is frankly no deterrent to murderers now - should they be incarcerated (in reasonable comfort) for life, no parole, or a few years as this lot will be or at some point, for certain crimes, should the ultimate penalty be applied?
There are many arguments both ways but most against seem based on what punishment is just in a modern, compassionate & civilised society - the difficulty for me is reprehensible scum like this, by their actions, have given up their right to live in such a society or to expect compassion in sentencing.
Maybe it would eradicate this vermin, that at least would be a start.
Compassion in sentencing is one thing. You're right, sentences are too lenient. However, that's not an issue of human rights once they're incarcerated. You have to provide basic human rights, even to these people. By "human rights" we don't mean "Sky TV" or other such luxuries, as seems to be suggested by a barrage of human rights lawyers, but simple things such as nutrition and hygiene. Sadly, the consensus - as borne out by the initial posts here - is that unless you demand that anybody breaking the law in any way is locked up indefinitely and left to rot without food, water, healthcare or human contact, then you're some lily-livered liberal who thinks all criminals are cuddly poodles. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Also, is the sole purpose of a custodial sentence to punish? I don't think it is. First off, rehabilitation comes into it. Now, the "Jebus"'s of this world will dismiss that, but the fact is, some criminals do indeed get rehabilitated in prison. It's provable. The fact that it isn't 100% successful is no reason to abandon it. Plus, of course, as well as punishment and rehabilitation, imprisonment also means the offender is, quite literally, unable to commit offences against society-at-large for the duration of their sentence. Punishment is only one aspect of a custodial sentence, make no mistake. And if anybody thinks by saying this I'm somehow magically defending criminals, I suggest you re-read it and try to put into words exactly how I'm doing that. Because I'm not
[quote][p][bold]Miles Way[/bold] wrote: No it wouldn't Ken, however the point we're at with the justice system is that there is frankly no deterrent to murderers now - should they be incarcerated (in reasonable comfort) for life, no parole, or a few years as this lot will be or at some point, for certain crimes, should the ultimate penalty be applied? There are many arguments both ways but most against seem based on what punishment is just in a modern, compassionate & civilised society - the difficulty for me is reprehensible scum like this, by their actions, have given up their right to live in such a society or to expect compassion in sentencing. Maybe it would eradicate this vermin, that at least would be a start. [/p][/quote]Compassion in sentencing is one thing. You're right, sentences are too lenient. However, that's not an issue of human rights once they're incarcerated. You have to provide basic human rights, even to these people. By "human rights" we don't mean "Sky TV" or other such luxuries, as seems to be suggested by a barrage of human rights lawyers, but simple things such as nutrition and hygiene. Sadly, the consensus - as borne out by the initial posts here - is that unless you demand that anybody breaking the law in any way is locked up indefinitely and left to rot without food, water, healthcare or human contact, then you're some lily-livered liberal who thinks all criminals are cuddly poodles. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Also, is the sole purpose of a custodial sentence to punish? I don't think it is. First off, rehabilitation comes into it. Now, the "Jebus"'s of this world will dismiss that, but the fact is, some criminals do indeed get rehabilitated in prison. It's provable. The fact that it isn't 100% successful is no reason to abandon it. Plus, of course, as well as punishment and rehabilitation, imprisonment also means the offender is, quite literally, unable to commit offences against society-at-large for the duration of their sentence. Punishment is only one aspect of a custodial sentence, make no mistake. And if anybody thinks by saying this I'm somehow magically defending criminals, I suggest you re-read it and try to put into words exactly [bold]how[/bold] I'm doing that. Because I'm not Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Wed 20 May 09

Georgem says...

Something to comment on wrote:
What's the betting on the fact that these guys already had a history of violence and theft. In certain parts of Europe around 65 years ago, 'undesirables' were dealt with in pretty harsh ways. Just an idea....
Let's not forget, though, that in certain parts of Europe 65 years ago - as with certain places now - "undesirables" had a somewhat different meaning than you might mean here. An old man of 80 laughs scornfully at lies being told by a Labour minister. He'd be an "undesirable" in "certain parts of Europe 65 years ago". Bet you were outraged at him being thrown out of the conference, though
[quote][p][bold]Something to comment on[/bold] wrote: What's the betting on the fact that these guys already had a history of violence and theft. In certain parts of Europe around 65 years ago, 'undesirables' were dealt with in pretty harsh ways. Just an idea....[/p][/quote]Let's not forget, though, that in certain parts of Europe 65 years ago - as with certain places now - "undesirables" had a somewhat different meaning than you might mean here. An old man of 80 laughs scornfully at lies being told by a Labour minister. He'd be an "undesirable" in "certain parts of Europe 65 years ago". Bet you were outraged at him being thrown out of the conference, though Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Wed 20 May 09

Snowman says...

.A just sentence for these cowards.. I bet an appeal on the way... Beyond words what I think of these two + others.. "roaming" curtailed for a while eh??
.A just sentence for these cowards.. I bet an appeal on the way... Beyond words what I think of these two + others.. "roaming" curtailed for a while eh?? Snowman
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Wed 20 May 09

Baybrit says...

Sometimes there really is a place for the death penalty. Trying to rehabilitate this kind of sub-human filth is a waste of time and putting them in prison is a waste of money.
Sometimes there really is a place for the death penalty. Trying to rehabilitate this kind of sub-human filth is a waste of time and putting them in prison is a waste of money. Baybrit
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Wed 20 May 09

Reality-man says...

Something to comment on wrote:
What's the betting on the fact that these guys already had a history of violence and theft. In certain parts of Europe around 65 years ago, 'undesirables' were dealt with in pretty harsh ways. Just an idea....
Yeah we'll probably go on to hear how they had 30 odd previous other convictions for this that and the other. Scum
[quote][p][bold]Something to comment on[/bold] wrote: What's the betting on the fact that these guys already had a history of violence and theft. In certain parts of Europe around 65 years ago, 'undesirables' were dealt with in pretty harsh ways. Just an idea....[/p][/quote]Yeah we'll probably go on to hear how they had 30 odd previous other convictions for this that and the other. Scum Reality-man
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Wed 20 May 09

Miles Way says...

Georgem wrote:
Miles Way wrote:
No it wouldn't Ken, however the point we're at with the justice system is that there is frankly no deterrent to murderers now - should they be incarcerated (in reasonable comfort) for life, no parole, or a few years as this lot will be or at some point, for certain crimes, should the ultimate penalty be applied?
There are many arguments both ways but most against seem based on what punishment is just in a modern, compassionate & civilised society - the difficulty for me is reprehensible scum like this, by their actions, have given up their right to live in such a society or to expect compassion in sentencing.
Maybe it would eradicate this vermin, that at least would be a start.
Compassion in sentencing is one thing. You're right, sentences are too lenient. However, that's not an issue of human rights once they're incarcerated. You have to provide basic human rights, even to these people. By "human rights" we don't mean "Sky TV" or other such luxuries, as seems to be suggested by a barrage of human rights lawyers, but simple things such as nutrition and hygiene. Sadly, the consensus - as borne out by the initial posts here - is that unless you demand that anybody breaking the law in any way is locked up indefinitely and left to rot without food, water, healthcare or human contact, then you're some lily-livered liberal who thinks all criminals are cuddly poodles. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Also, is the sole purpose of a custodial sentence to punish? I don't think it is. First off, rehabilitation comes into it. Now, the "Jebus"'s of this world will dismiss that, but the fact is, some criminals do indeed get rehabilitated in prison. It's provable. The fact that it isn't 100% successful is no reason to abandon it. Plus, of course, as well as punishment and rehabilitation, imprisonment also means the offender is, quite literally, unable to commit offences against society-at-large for the duration of their sentence. Punishment is only one aspect of a custodial sentence, make no mistake. And if anybody thinks by saying this I'm somehow magically defending criminals, I suggest you re-read it and try to put into words exactly how I'm doing that. Because I'm not
No disagreement from me Georgem, I quite like the 3 strikes you're out (or rather in) approach in the US, that way rehabilitated crims can stay out, those that aren't will eventually go back - forever.
That said, something needs to be done about truly sickening violent crime such as this.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Miles Way[/bold] wrote: No it wouldn't Ken, however the point we're at with the justice system is that there is frankly no deterrent to murderers now - should they be incarcerated (in reasonable comfort) for life, no parole, or a few years as this lot will be or at some point, for certain crimes, should the ultimate penalty be applied? There are many arguments both ways but most against seem based on what punishment is just in a modern, compassionate & civilised society - the difficulty for me is reprehensible scum like this, by their actions, have given up their right to live in such a society or to expect compassion in sentencing. Maybe it would eradicate this vermin, that at least would be a start. [/p][/quote]Compassion in sentencing is one thing. You're right, sentences are too lenient. However, that's not an issue of human rights once they're incarcerated. You have to provide basic human rights, even to these people. By "human rights" we don't mean "Sky TV" or other such luxuries, as seems to be suggested by a barrage of human rights lawyers, but simple things such as nutrition and hygiene. Sadly, the consensus - as borne out by the initial posts here - is that unless you demand that anybody breaking the law in any way is locked up indefinitely and left to rot without food, water, healthcare or human contact, then you're some lily-livered liberal who thinks all criminals are cuddly poodles. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Also, is the sole purpose of a custodial sentence to punish? I don't think it is. First off, rehabilitation comes into it. Now, the "Jebus"'s of this world will dismiss that, but the fact is, some criminals do indeed get rehabilitated in prison. It's provable. The fact that it isn't 100% successful is no reason to abandon it. Plus, of course, as well as punishment and rehabilitation, imprisonment also means the offender is, quite literally, unable to commit offences against society-at-large for the duration of their sentence. Punishment is only one aspect of a custodial sentence, make no mistake. And if anybody thinks by saying this I'm somehow magically defending criminals, I suggest you re-read it and try to put into words exactly [bold]how[/bold] I'm doing that. Because I'm not[/p][/quote]No disagreement from me Georgem, I quite like the 3 strikes you're out (or rather in) approach in the US, that way rehabilitated crims can stay out, those that aren't will eventually go back - forever. That said, something needs to be done about truly sickening violent crime such as this. Miles Way
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Wed 20 May 09

stuartjebbitt says...

Baybrit wrote:
Sometimes there really is a place for the death penalty. Trying to rehabilitate this kind of sub-human filth is a waste of time and putting them in prison is a waste of money.
totally agree. there is such a thing as total evil, and this is it.

[quote][p][bold]Baybrit[/bold] wrote: Sometimes there really is a place for the death penalty. Trying to rehabilitate this kind of sub-human filth is a waste of time and putting them in prison is a waste of money.[/p][/quote]totally agree. there is such a thing as total evil, and this is it. stuartjebbitt
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Wed 20 May 09

Georgem says...

Miles, the problem with the 3 strikes rule is, some guy who's been inside twice already gets caught stealing Toffos from the corner shop or something equally trivial, and he's got absolutely nothing to lose by killing the guy who catches him.

There's a reason we haven't solved the law and order problem yet, and it's because there isn't one simple solution. I agree that some people simply can't be cured, and the guys in this story are strong contenders. If you can't work out what's wrong torturing an old man, there's not much hope for you really
Miles, the problem with the 3 strikes rule is, some guy who's been inside twice already gets caught stealing Toffos from the corner shop or something equally trivial, and he's got absolutely nothing to lose by killing the guy who catches him. There's a reason we haven't solved the law and order problem yet, and it's because there isn't one simple solution. I agree that some people simply can't be cured, and the guys in this story are strong contenders. If you can't work out what's wrong torturing an old man, there's not much hope for you really Georgem
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Wed 20 May 09

Miles Way says...

Georgem wrote:
Miles, the problem with the 3 strikes rule is, some guy who's been inside twice already gets caught stealing Toffos from the corner shop or something equally trivial, and he's got absolutely nothing to lose by killing the guy who catches him.

There's a reason we haven't solved the law and order problem yet, and it's because there isn't one simple solution. I agree that some people simply can't be cured, and the guys in this story are strong contenders. If you can't work out what's wrong torturing an old man, there's not much hope for you really
Yep, same goes for the cap/pun argument, if you're going to pay big time try not to leave any incriminating evidence behind. I can see the logic but I feel that's an argument pursued by those against CP and may not be true in practice.
My point here is that the current system does not work and needs a radical overhaul, not necessarily for crimes of passion etc but specifically in circumstances like this, viloent crime/murder, where what they've done cannot in any way be justified.
Under the current system we incarcerate them for years (in, lets face it, a fairly easy environment) in the hope they will be reformed when they're finally released to enjoy the 20-30 years they'll have left. Reality is, if they are prepared to perpetrate a crime such as this, they won't be, so we're back to square one.
We'd shoot a rabid dog wouldn't we?

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: Miles, the problem with the 3 strikes rule is, some guy who's been inside twice already gets caught stealing Toffos from the corner shop or something equally trivial, and he's got absolutely nothing to lose by killing the guy who catches him. There's a reason we haven't solved the law and order problem yet, and it's because there isn't one simple solution. I agree that some people simply can't be cured, and the guys in this story are strong contenders. If you can't work out what's wrong torturing an old man, there's not much hope for you really[/p][/quote]Yep, same goes for the cap/pun argument, if you're going to pay big time try not to leave any incriminating evidence behind. I can see the logic but I feel that's an argument pursued by those against CP and may not be true in practice. My point here is that the current system does not work and needs a radical overhaul, not necessarily for crimes of passion etc but specifically in circumstances like this, viloent crime/murder, where what they've done cannot in any way be justified. Under the current system we incarcerate them for years (in, lets face it, a fairly easy environment) in the hope they will be reformed when they're finally released to enjoy the 20-30 years they'll have left. Reality is, if they are prepared to perpetrate a crime such as this, they won't be, so we're back to square one. We'd shoot a rabid dog wouldn't we? Miles Way
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree