50 Years Ago When Harold Wilson Was In...
ChatterBank0 min ago
So another piece of scum gets away with it.
9 Answers
http://www.telegraph....leared-of-murder.html
/// She was found not guilty of murder by jurors at Birmingham Crown Court on the orders of trial judge Mr Justice Roderick Evans.///
What's the point in having a jury in the first place, if the Judge can order them, not to find a person guilty of murder?
So she was suffering from severe depression was she? That's not a patch on what little defenceless Khyra suffered also the cruelty inflicted on her five other children.
/// She was found not guilty of murder by jurors at Birmingham Crown Court on the orders of trial judge Mr Justice Roderick Evans.///
What's the point in having a jury in the first place, if the Judge can order them, not to find a person guilty of murder?
So she was suffering from severe depression was she? That's not a patch on what little defenceless Khyra suffered also the cruelty inflicted on her five other children.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
that's not quite what happened. The Crown charged her with murder then decided to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter instead. (I don't know why - perhaps they felt they had to balance the possibility of having her found not guilty of murder against the certainty that she would be guilty of manslaughter, and decided on plea-bargaining.) Anyway, the murder charge was officially in the books, so the judge had to order the jury formally to find her not guilty of it. But it was the prosecution's decision, not the judge's.
-- answer removed --
Read the link for the answer,AOG..
A judge always has the power to direct an acquittal . Have you never heard of 'no case to answer' ? That's where the judge directs the jury to acquit. In this case, having heard legal argument and expert evidence from psychiatrists, the judge ruled that the defence of 'diminished responsibility' which was being raised was unanswerable. The prosecution, led by Queen's Counsel, agreed.
'Diminished responsibility' is a defence peculiar to murder cases. It was created by section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. It is not available in any other case.If it succeeds, the jury return a verdict of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter.
It applies when the accused was suffering from such 'abnormality of mind' at the time of the offence as 'substantially impaired their mental responsibility for [their] acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing'
It is raised in all manner of murder cases, not just ones of clear psychiatric condition. It's quite common in 'battered wife' cases where the woman has been subjected to persistent abuse and suddenly 'snaps' and picks up a weapon and kills her abusive husband. It is sometimes, somewhat misleadingly, known as the defence of provocation' because, in extreme cases, someone might be so provoked that they kill the provoker , in what might be termed 'a moment of temporary insanity'
A judge always has the power to direct an acquittal . Have you never heard of 'no case to answer' ? That's where the judge directs the jury to acquit. In this case, having heard legal argument and expert evidence from psychiatrists, the judge ruled that the defence of 'diminished responsibility' which was being raised was unanswerable. The prosecution, led by Queen's Counsel, agreed.
'Diminished responsibility' is a defence peculiar to murder cases. It was created by section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. It is not available in any other case.If it succeeds, the jury return a verdict of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter.
It applies when the accused was suffering from such 'abnormality of mind' at the time of the offence as 'substantially impaired their mental responsibility for [their] acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing'
It is raised in all manner of murder cases, not just ones of clear psychiatric condition. It's quite common in 'battered wife' cases where the woman has been subjected to persistent abuse and suddenly 'snaps' and picks up a weapon and kills her abusive husband. It is sometimes, somewhat misleadingly, known as the defence of provocation' because, in extreme cases, someone might be so provoked that they kill the provoker , in what might be termed 'a moment of temporary insanity'
-- answer removed --
if starving little kiddies to death is not murder what on earth is? if she was suffering from diminished responsibility and or depression, why on earth was she allowed to "home educate" her children in the first place? depression as I can confirm does not happen suddenly, it must have been clear to someone that the woman was in trouble, why was she not checked out? for her sake as well as the kids.
Murder generally means you set out to kill the person.
Very hard to prove in cases like this (and I doubt they wanted to murder her anyway).
Manslaughter often means death was unintentional, which is probably true in this case.
They just seem low life people who cant even run their own lives let alone look after a child.
I am afraid there are plenty like this. On drugs or drink, or just awful people / parents.
Very hard to prove in cases like this (and I doubt they wanted to murder her anyway).
Manslaughter often means death was unintentional, which is probably true in this case.
They just seem low life people who cant even run their own lives let alone look after a child.
I am afraid there are plenty like this. On drugs or drink, or just awful people / parents.
VHG it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, without lawful excuse, to prove murder.It is not necessary, and commonly not possible, to prove an intent to kill.
This was just such a case of intent to cause grievous bodily harm being quite easy to prove but intent to kill being possibly quite difficult to prove .Which of the two intents was the real intent makes no difference to the indictment for murder.
In the instant case, the decision by the Crown to accept the plea of guilty to. and the judge to direct a verdict of, manslaughter was the result of the defence of diminished responsibility provided by the Homicide Act which this woman was afforded.
This was just such a case of intent to cause grievous bodily harm being quite easy to prove but intent to kill being possibly quite difficult to prove .Which of the two intents was the real intent makes no difference to the indictment for murder.
In the instant case, the decision by the Crown to accept the plea of guilty to. and the judge to direct a verdict of, manslaughter was the result of the defence of diminished responsibility provided by the Homicide Act which this woman was afforded.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.