|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 28, 2020 15:22:44 GMT
I seriously struggle to understand how the Jury acquitted him of murder. A travesty. It seems like the judge in sentencing remarks feels the same way.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,967
Likes: 4,800
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 15:35:45 GMT
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 296
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Oct 28, 2020 18:54:21 GMT
I thought a requirement for murder in the UK was premeditation and he had already plead guilty to manslaughter? I am loathed to say juries have got something wrong when they have heard a lot more information than me. But it does sadly feed into that narrative that a woman's life can be very cheap when a man looks a certain way and/or does a certain job...
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 28, 2020 19:16:50 GMT
I thought a requirement for murder in the UK was premeditation and he had already plead guilty to manslaughter? I am loathed to say juries have got something wrong when they have heard a lot more information than me. But it does sadly feed into that narrative that a woman's life can be very cheap when a man looks a certain way and/or does a certain job... I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, albeit it is a common misconception. My layman understanding (aided it must be said by a quick check on google to ensure I don't make a complete arse of myself), is that there has to be an intention to commit serious injury, but not to murder: the 'malice aforethought'. That doesn't mean it has to have been planned.
This is different from what I understand from the US which, while it varies by state, widely has say 5 categories of "homocide". From what I see on Wikipedia thingy, that is actually quite illuminating. The distinction they make between Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter. Second degree murder and Voluntary Manslaughter seem closer together in seriousness than Vol. and Involuntary Manslaughter. The latter seems to be a close fit for england/wales Manslaughter with Vol Manslaughter being more akin to uk murder, but committed more on the spur of the moment.
I understand your reticence to second guess a jury, but frankly this looks like a travesty, and I think the judge felt that too given his comments.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 28, 2020 19:23:17 GMT
Judges don't normally make statements such as this.
"I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you, thereby causing...severe neck injuries," the judge added. "The evidence from the pathologist was that those injuries which she described as 'severe' on a scale of mild, moderate or severe resulted from the application of significant force to the neck for a period of a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.
That would be alluring to the 'intent' part.
"She said it was difficult to envisage a situation where a struggle in the car imparted the necessary degree of force or could explain the extent and severity of the neck injuries." media captionPolice body-worn video shows PC Brehmer in the back of an ambulance
Brehmer told the trial he had left the car without realising Mrs Parry was "poorly".
However, the judge said as a trained police officer "it must have been obvious" that Mrs Parry was not breathing.
"Yet you did nothing to try to help Claire Parry," Mr Justice Jacobs added. "You did not ask her how she was. That was because you knew how she was.
"You could not possibly have thought, as you said in your police interview, that she was simply taking a breath.
"You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her.
"Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was - hanging half out of the car."
Whether the prosecution made a good case presentation or not is another matter.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,967
Likes: 4,800
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 19:27:01 GMT
Judges don't normally make statements such as this.
... Judges don't decide cases. I make no comment on the evidence presented, because I wasn't there. The 11 jurors were - and they were unanimous that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Like I say, I suspect it hinged on that particular requirement of murder, as explained in the link to the Crown Prosecution Service's definitions and precedents on the difference between the two. The rule of law remains ahead of emotive comments and press coverage. Which, imho, is as it should be. This bloke is undoubtedly a slug, and is spending a lot of (assuredly very unpleasant) time behind bars, which is exactly where he belongs. I leave it to those who were present in court to determine whether that was because the prosecution barrister simply failed to do their job very well, whether the defence did a very good job, or whether he is simply a clumsy slug who never meant her no harm, honest guv.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,192
Likes: 6,000
|
Post by registerme on Oct 28, 2020 19:48:50 GMT
Every time I look at this thread title I think "Amy Coney Barrett".
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,967
Likes: 4,800
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 20:00:54 GMT
Every time I look at this thread title I think "Amy Coney Barrett". I have a suspicion that Trumplethinskin's too stupid to realise that in pushing that through, he's signed his own political death warrant. The religious right don't need four more years of him any more. He's served his purpose. They can stop holding their noses.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 28, 2020 20:05:35 GMT
Judges don't normally make statements such as this.
... Judges don't decide cases. I make no comment on the evidence presented, because I wasn't there. The 11 jurors were - and they were unanimous that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Like I say, I suspect it hinged on that particular requirement of murder, as explained in the link to the Crown Prosecution Service's definitions and precedents on the difference between the two. The rule of law remains ahead of emotive comments and press coverage. Which, imho, is as it should be. This bloke is undoubtedly a slug, and is spending a lot of (assuredly very unpleasant) time behind bars, which is exactly where he belongs. I leave it to those who were present in court to determine whether that was because the prosecution barrister simply failed to do their job very well, whether the defence did a very good job, or whether he is simply a clumsy slug who never meant her no harm, honest guv. I can agree with all of those comments while still thinking that in this case the jury decision was wrong, for whatever reasons. It doesn't matter what the press coverage is: judges are very careful in their comments and that is what I'm relating to.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Oct 29, 2020 11:07:44 GMT
I've often thought that jury trials are a bit of a pantomime and that what people must like is the spectacle of occasional bizarre decisions, and from the criminal's point of view, a side chance of getting away with it. For the rich, the scales are nicely weighed by an expensive legal team. Contrast this with the dry unglamorous inquisitorial system used in other countries nearby. Not the same theatre at all.
It's my guess that lay jury trials lead to higher rates of miscarriages of justice than the alternatives, which would be panel of judges/ professional jury / specialist jury (For instance in medical malpractice, a jury of medical professionals). The advantage of all these alternatives is that they have more knowledge of the subject and or more knowledge of the law, and less prey to charismatic lawyers. Equal justice for all seems a hollow cry when the whiff of money buying better outcomes pervades the legal system.
Edit
I just realised that this makes more impact put the other way around. If you are innocent and get hauled before a court, would you prefer to be judged by a panel of legal experts backed up by people with expert knowledge of the subject, or a bunch of people chosen at random?
Double Edit
If you were black and innocent, would you prefer to face a random and mainly or completely white jury or professionally and legally qualified investigators?
|
|