He rushed in without a second thought to save Stella but your forgetting the part where he left Sunita in a burning building and went back to the Bistro and after that went back to the hospital to finish her off. He could have got Sunita out of the pub and stopped Toni from getting killed but chose not to.

seven years for murder and manslaughter AND arson? I sure hope your joking.

I don't see how he could have stopped Toni getting killed. Yes if he hadn't lit the fire she wouldn't have died but remember that after handing Stella over to Paul, Karl collapsed because he was overcome by the smoke. Toni chose to go and save him of her own free will remember.

Yes he could have chosen to get Sunita help and confess to lighting the fire and yes she chose to go to the hospital to kill her in cold blood - I'm not saying these things weren't wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think he is evil because he did feel guilt over what he did, handed himself in at the end and did go into a burning building to get Stella out once he realised Stella was in there. Compare that to Frank Foster who was truly evil because he didn't give a damn about anyone but himself, lied to and used his own parents, let his dad waste away and die while he knew he was guilty, felt no guilt or remorse over his cruel rape of Carla and had no mental llnes of any kind.

Seven years was what was suggested by the above poster so I went along with it. I don't know the justice system well enough to know how long he should get but as far as I know only first degree (pre planned murder) gets life and this Karl did not do though he did kill Sunita in cold blood. Manslaughter gets less than murder because by definition there is with manslaughter no intent to kill. Realistically with the proper guilt/remorse (some of which he has already shown), good behaviour and proper psychiatric help he would not serve as long as he is sentenced for.

It was a case of you don't know what you have until it's gone. He already had the life he wanted before he went out gambling all his money away and having an affair with Sunita. I don't agree that the bad occurrences "happened to him". He always had a choice, and he kept making bad ones.

He wasn't a victim of circumstances - that could be said of Hayley or the people killed in the tram crash.

Hey this is corrie, Tracy murdered someone and was soon back in the street

And Audrey had a near fatal heart attack and was back in the Rovers supping gin a week later.

Sunita was a schemer and just as bad as Karl. She shouldn't of been getting drunk and following Karl into the Rovers at night. Not saying she deserved to die, but again not many people liked Sunita and called her slut and everything here.

Plus she smirked when Karl couldn't get Stella back, but that backfired when Dev decided not to take her back as she didn't really love him.

I agree that Sunita wasn't a very nice person, was just as much to blame for the affair as Karl was and did smirk when Karl couldn't get Stella back but she was still the mother of the twins and Karl still went to the hospital and killed her in cold blood, making those twins motherless which was a terrible thing to do. I understand Karl panicking and leaving because the fire spread after initially running down the stairs to help her because that is a natural human reaction but he should have left the door open, rung the emergency services, admitted to what he had done and told people she was in there.

Yeah, but as usual Corrie likes to take things too far. Just simply burning the building and causing manslaughter wasn't enough.

I agree with you Nathan. They should have had Toni and Sunita being manslaughter and Sunita dying as a result of fire rather than Karl out and out killing her.

Where the offender is 21 or over at the time of the offence and the court takes the view that the murder is so grave that the offender should spend the rest of his life in prison, a 'whole life order' is the appropriate starting point. The early release provisions in section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 will then not apply. Such an order should only be specified where the court considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high. Such cases include:

a) the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditation, the abduction of the victim, or sexual or sadistic conduct;
b) the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation;
c) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; or
d) a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.

Where the offence is not so serious as to warrant a whole life order but the seriousness of the offence is particularly high the appropriate starting point is 30 years. The following examples are given:

a) the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his duty;
b) a murder involving the use of a firearm or explosive;
c) a murder done for gain (in the course of a robbery or burglary, or done for payment);
d) a murder intended to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice;
e) a murder involving sexual or sadistic conduct;
f) the murder of two or more persons; or
g) a murder that is racially or religiously aggravated or aggravated by sexual orientation.

Where the offender the offender took a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to (a) commit any offence, or (b) have it available to use as a weapon, and used that knife or other weapon in committing the murder the normal starting point is 25 years. This increased minimum term does not apply in relation to a life sentence imposed for an offence of murder committed before 2 March 2010.

For all other offences the appropriate starting point is 15 years.