Sally Challen

[Tilly2]

You may remember me posting this link wishing this woman well.

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1648041.html

She has had the conviction for murder quashed and is now back home.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-47845450

She will now face a new trial and again, I hope that things turn out positively for her.

[Tilly2]

I asked you to explain it, Retro. I can google things like that myself.

[Tilly2]

This is where I first read about Sally.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/29/devoted-wife-who-killed-husband-with-hammer-sally-challen

[Baldric]

/// I have just googled it and found a lot of options ///

Then you have a good idea of the answer.

[Tilly2]

Do you?

[retrocop]

Question AuthorI asked you to explain it, Retro. I can google things like that myself.

Well you should of then. I told you I worked under the Common Law definition of Murder. I provided that link to the definition.
Tht was the definition of murder for which she was charged at the time by the arresting officer and was agreed by the CPS.
A new law has since come on the statute books since her murder conviction. How many crimes do you wish to be tried retrospectively when a new statute appears on the book?

[david small]

If she did that in a Muslim country she’d have been a gonner long ago. Murder is murder. She should have walked/run away, and not found a hammer. A killer she is, and always will be.

[Tilly2]

So can either of you tell me, in your own words, the difference between murder and killing?

[jackthehat]

Murder is carried out with 'malice aforethought'.....

I wonder if that was in Retrocop's (American) link?

[sherrardk]

From my reading of the article her conviction was overturned because the evidence of the physiatrist was not available at the time of her original trial.

[jno]

killing may be accidental (and the term is also used of despatching non-humans, of course). Very broadly speaking, murder is used of deliberate killing, manslaughter when you didn't mean to kill someone but were behaving dangerously or carelessly.

There are defences to murder charges, such as self-defence. I think what Ms Challen is claiming is a sort of long-term self-defence. Good luck to her.

[Barmaid]

The law relating to coercive control is in respect of offences. Not defences. Simply evidence that should have been presented at trial, wasn't.

There is no question of retrospective application.

[Tilly2]

''Her lawyer said this time the case would be “armed with great deal more concerning the context of how Sally came to act”. She had been portrayed as a jealous wife in her first trial, she said, adding: “I think that picture is now turned on its head because of our understanding of coercive control.”

[Baldric]

// because of our understanding of coercive control //

Which was not Law at the time of her conviction.

[Tilly2]

I see you are ignoring my 19:16 post, Baldric. :-)

[Togo]

Was there any evidence of "coersive behaviour" presented at her trial for violent killing, or is that now being used as a retrospective, get out of jail card, by another luvvie lawyer(oxymoron warning)? Did he have an opportunity to deny such behaviour or does his death deem it a convenient "given". Will men be allowed to act as jurors at her "fair trial"? Would you like to hear his "retrospective" version of events? Or is that something that you refuse to countenance? Pooper scooper required methinks.

[pixie374]

BM has just said it isn't "retrospective". The question is.... If somebody is wrongly convicted, should it be corrected when more information is known?

[Baldric]

@ 19:43
It is not relevant so yes' ignored.

[Calicogirl]

//Will men be allowed to act as jurors at her "fair trial"? //

I would imagine so and I would imagine that they would treat the matter fairly,most me would not need to constantly refer to the gender of the accused as though that in itself were her crime.

[sherrardk]

It’s hardly the woman’s fault that a new law has been introduced since her original trial.