Claire Parry’s killer found NOT GUILTY of Murder.

If any person in the world is capable of getting a reluctant person in and out of a car without killing them, it's a police officer. Ditto knowing how much force is needed to hurt someone. And the consequences of that. Restraint is something they are TRAINED in. Plus quite a lot of first responder type aid. Medical aid.

Loss of control is utterly dreadful. It amounts to 'yeah but I was really upset guvnor'. People don't kill people because they are happily in control, do they?

"But you can't say what it SHOULD have been unless you have heard ALL the evidence...and you haven't."
This would mean we can never have opinions about jury's decisions unless we are privy to all the evidence - which is impossible. Look, the law in this area is not particularly complex. It's just a matter of applying it to the facts. And the key facts are known. One is permitted to be surprised that a jury has found a repeat "convincing" liar, who changed his story, believable.

As for the loss of control thing, I thought the statute excluded ANY reference to infidelity, but it seems it only excludes things said or done which amount to affairs but not disclosure of affairs. That seems regrettable.

I wonder if this defence will cover other murders.
Generally everyone who kills someone is upset with the person they kill.

So basically him killing her was 'justified' because she upset him.

Secret barrister also doesn't cover the scandal of the statutory loss of control defence being twisted to allow affairs as a trigger for loss of control.

But the SB isn't commenting on what the law should be, they are explaining why, given the current law, this verdict might have been reached.

I agree that 'loss of control' doesn't seem a reasonable excuse given what has been reported, but without knowing details its impossible to know whether the judgement was faulty, whether the law doesn't adequately cope with cases like this, or whether there was some other circumstance that hasn't been revealed to the public.

I still cannot believe this verdict, so angry!

It was her texting the wife that was considered the trigger, not the infidelity involved. He had been enthusiastically partaking of that infidelity for a decade.

I cannot fathom how a jury decides that was a reasonable response. I really despair.

I dislike the Secret Barrister's take on these kind of crimes, to be honest. He very patiently explains what the law is, like we are all dummies who don't know that it's up to a jury. But we are complaining that it SHOULD not have been the verdict. How on earth can a defendant who repeatedly lied get away with breaking a woman's neck? His story doesn't make any sense. A 'kerfuffle' accidentally killed her? Secret barrister also doesn't cover the scandal of the statutory loss of control defence being twisted to allow affairs as a trigger for loss of control.

Reason for adjournment for sentence? - Maybe the pre-sentence report needed to be completed and looked at by the defence, in order to prepare for mitigation

I wonder why sentencing was postponed. Apparently he told the passers by who found him that he'd been stabbed. Lies.

Sentencing is apparently tomorrow morning.

thisoneday - I posted the link to the AG's page on appealing sentencing, in anticipation of a mere slap on the wrist. My money's on him getting the lightest possible sentence allowed because "policeman", "previously of good character", "crime of passion in the moment", "won't someone think of his poor family?"

I hope the judge proves me wrong, but based on some recent shockers, I'm not holding my breath.

Anyone know is sentence?

There’s a video showing him being arrested at the scene, a policeman reads his statement back to him and in it he says he can’t remember how he got the knife wounds. Handy that loss of memory stuff.

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321156610560057344?s=19

Awful case. Well spoken, well practiced liar gets off a murder charge.

I should also say that the Crown cannot appeal the verdict due to the law of double jeapardy. The only way that he can be re-tried is if the Court of Appeal find that there is "new and compelling evidence". The law was changed to allow this after the murder of Julie Hogg. Her murderer was acquitted, then confessed to the murder whilst in prison for another offence.

As a society we have been conditioned to accept some people's opinion more easily than others. So a policeman is seen as someone who is more likely to be truthful or less likely to lie.

It was amazing doing jury duty to see how many people would accept the establishment's point without asking for evidence.

Hi all, criminal lawyer here. This is a really sad and upsetting verdict.

For a conviction of murder, you must intend to either kill or cause really serious harm to the person. If you do not have that intent, or were reckless as to the injury, you are guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Manslaughter is defined as an unlawful act causing death: So if I punch someone, and they fall to the ground, crack their head open on a paving slab and die, then I am guilty of manslaughter as I have no intention to cause really serious harm.

Although asking for an AG reference of an unduly lenient sentence is an appropriate course of action in many cases, the judge will have to sentence on the jury's finding: i.e that they were not sure of intention to kill or cause GBH, but are sure that the defendant's unlawful act caused death.

So unless the sentence is unusually low for the offence of manslaughter, then an AG ref request will not succeed.

I have no idea what caused the jury to conclude as they did in this case. Under three hours is a very short period of deliberation for murder.

I would also say that it is almost certain that both sides would have got expert pathologist reports on the injuries and possible causation. It would seem they were not conclusive, but I don't know anything about the case, so cannot say for sure.

Finally, whilst judges can be blamed for many things, this is the verdict of a jury.

Desperately sad day for Ms Parry's family. My thoughts are very much with them.

Surely with strangulation the time it takes proves intent. It’s not like a “stab, ohshitwhathaveIdone” moment. It’s prolonged, it requires pressure to be maintained, presumably while a victim is struggling. One angry second doesn’t get it done.

How on Earth anyone can say that that’s anything less than completely deliberate mystifies me.

So angry about this. I knew he'd get away with it.
I complained to the Metro about their victim-blaming headline about this last week - 'Cop killed lover ‘after she broke affair rules.’

Got a really shitty response back tbh, which contained this chestnut, 'I hope you can see our point of view. Of course, were he to be found guilty, I’m sure he will be condemned strongly by the judge, and we will report that.'

Thanks DaneLikeEmmaGoldman, thanks but I'm in England so I was thinking of English Police and courts. I should have said.

From what I read, I don’t think they denied intent. I think they relied on the partial defence of loss of control.