Claire Parry’s killer found NOT GUILTY of Murder.

Secret Barrister is now suggesting (Thanks for link Nellle) that it wasn't that the jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict for murder, but that they judged there was enough evidence for 'loss of control' to reduce the murder change to manslaughter.

Does 10 years mean that he will be out in five?

I think the “reasonable doubt” is a difficult one. I know that I would be rubbish on a jury - I’m a mathematician - a proof is a proof and without a (mathematical so flawless) proof I am not sure of anything.

I don’t like the way the newspapers are saying “the jury believed him” when the real truth is probably “the jury thought he was almost certainly a lying murderer but they did have a tiny bit of doubt so had to acquit him”.

In Scotland do they still have the “not proven” verdict? On the whole I don’t like it because it makes a mockery of “innocent until proven guilty” but I suddenly feel like maybe we needed it here.

Re self control the test is if

a person of the defendant’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might in the circumstances have reacted in the same or a similar way.

At first glance, it doesn't seem reasonable to include sex as a comparator here - surely that lowers the bar for men?

Have I missed something?

Is there a situation where this law would help women?

Shouldn't everyone show the same degree of tolerance and restraint regardless of sex?

"Loss of control" manslaughter, rather than "he didn't mean it" manslaughter.

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321425591531425792?s=19

How depressing.

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321425591531425792?s=19

Thanks WeeBisom

Ten years. Fucking hell we really are disposable aren't we? Ten years.

If there's one type of person who knows how to remove someone of any size and weight from a car (let alone a slim woman) it's a police officer, especially a traffic one.

My god. It feels like we are going backwards every day.

If murder isn’t the intention but the likely or natural consequence is death then you can infer intent (it’s called Woolin intention.) The standard example is if you set off a bomb on a plane to crash it for insurance purposes but had no intention directly to harm anyone. In this case the court would say death of the crew was an obvious consequence of the bombing so would infer intention to kill. It’s also murder if you intend to inflict really serous harm and they end up dying.

Loss of control is a partial defence that can lower a murder charge to manslaughter. It’s supposed to be a tough threshold to pass. You have to be triggered by something serious, and the jury has to be convinced that the loss of control was justifiable - like a normal person of the same sex and age would also lose control in a similar circumstance. So you can try to plead loss of control in any murder trial.

I also think there's a problem in the law as it stands in that the threshold to prove murder rather than manslaughter is quite high.

Can any lawyers on this thread comment on how the law treat cases where murder wasn't the intention, but it would be reasonable to assume that the consequence of an action would be death? Is this where the loss of control defence comes in? Somebody can be in a state of mind where they are relieved of the obligation to make reasonable assumptions?

Being the one*

I agree, Cara. The meaning of 'reasonable' really does need to be emphasised if juries are to stay as they are. I would prefer an overhaul. I sat on a jury where one woman said that she knew the accused was a 'wrong'un the minute she clapped eyes on him' and none of what was said during the trial would have swayed her mind otherwise. I truly believe that prejudice whether in favour of or not in favour of the accused plays a major role.
On the other end of the spectrum I've known someone who said they couldn't face the guilt of being the end to send someone down so this influenced their decision to go for 'not guilty'. A flawed system all round.

I think the judge did indeed have the measure of him and didn't for one moment believe his ridiculous defence.

I also think there's a problem in the law as it stands in that the threshold to prove murder rather than manslaughter is quite high. The "loss of control" defence is absurd, and of course favours men who kill women, because men are so much stronger than women that it is very easy to overpower and kill a woman in a fit of anger.

I think the judge has made it fairly clear that he thinks the killer had deliberately killed Claire Parry. I think the sentence is probably the maximum.possible given that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

As a former police officer he will not have an easy time in prison.

As a follow-up, at the risk of sounding like the dreadful hanging judge at the start of Strong Poison, I think maybe better guidelines are needed for juries as to what is meant by "beyond reasonable doubt."

There are occasions where it seems to be interpreted by juries to mean "beyond any doubt whatsoever, even if one has to invoke sci-fi, fantasy novel scenarios, magic and divine intervention to create this suspension of doubt." For instance, the infamous rape case where the defendant got off by claiming he tripped and fell penis first into his naked, unconscious (because he'd plyed her with drink) victim's vagina. Or in this case, where a pathologist has explained to the jury just how much force is required to cause the injuries to the neck seen in this case, and yet the jury still felt there was reasonable doubt that maybe he'd just grabbed her by the neck by accident, simply intending to move her out of the car.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" shouldn't mean "suspension of all disbelief and critical faculties."

I despair.

It's a much better sentence than I'd feared.

Morally speaking nowhere near enough.

As to why the judge found as he did, there may be some clues in here:
www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-the-sentence-for-manslaughter-how-many-years-could-you-face-in-prison/

According to yesterday's BBC article, I think Brehmer pled guilty to the manslaughter charge, but not guilty to the murder charge. Thus, it could be that the judge had to take into account that he had admitted the offence he was actually being sentenced for (this usually reduces a tarrif by 1/3, I think).

So why not more than 10 years?

Sounds like the judge has got the measure of him.

"She (the pathologist) 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".

'You were a trained and experienced police officer and your character witnesses described how you would help others.

'Yet you did nothing to try to help Claire Parry. You did not ask her how she was. That was because you knew how she was.

'You could not possibly 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.

'It must have been obvious to you as a trained police officer with extensive experience of casualties in traffic accidents that she was not breathing.

'In evidence you said you did not realise she was poorly. I consider that you appreciated that she was much worse than that.'

He knew exactly what the results of his actions would be, he was angry with her and wanted to silence her.

Thinking of the Parry family and his poor wife and child.

10 years and 6 months is not nearly long enough for the damage he has done.

I'm so fucking sick of people claiming they've lost control when actually they are exerting it.

Sentenced to ten and a half years. That's not a bad sentence - I was fearing worse.

The sentencing remarks will be interesting I think.

The statement by Claire Parry's husband was incredibly dignified. He talks about how, by pleading not guilty, Claire's family were forced to sit through a trial where her faults were focused on, and not the good things about her.

I appreciate that we dont know all.the ins and outs of the trial but it does seem incredible that the jury went for acquittal.