Paris Mayo convicted of murder (TW)

[Whitakers]

NB v distressing content

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/23/teenager-guilty-baby-herefordshire-hide-pregnancy-paris-mayo

The jury was asked to consider an alternative verdict of infanticide but found her guilty of murder. I’m surprised by this- surprised she wasn’t just charged with infanticide in the first place, to be honest. It’s a terrible case.

Yea, the judge was going out on a limb to do that so he must have felt very strongly about how that expert opinion given so unprofessionally and with overt bias might have unduly influenced the jury. I think there are definitely grounds to appeal the conviction for murder and reduce it to the lesser charge of infanticide.

No, people think it's sick to kill a baby full stop. Bringing up other, possible, miscarriages of justice doesn't get away from the fact that Paris caused appalling injuries to her son, that the injuries were likened to a car crash victim, that he lived for some time after the first injury and she finished him off by stuffing cotton wool down his throat. It doesn't matter if the baby was male or female, it's utterly appalling. It has nothing to do with a female ' not fulfilling her destiny as a woman'. It's being unspeakably cruel to a human being when they are at their most vulnerable.

Bullshit, and disgusting of you to infer that there wouldn't be as much upset and outrage if she'd similarly murdered a baby girl.

I agree it’s disgusting, but I am not speculating because it’s happened.

30 day community order for a very similar neonaticide of a baby girl in 2021 by a 24yr old mother. Mother also crushed her skull. The baby’s blood was found on the spike of the park iron fence too. Then left the body under a tree in the park.

https://www.hampshirelive.news/news/hampshire-news/baby-m-mother-given-community-5699275

Of course it’s utterly appalling, the issue is that some victims seem worth more than other victims because the convictions and sentences for such horrific crimes are so very different even in similar circumstances.

But they might not be exactly the same, or broadly the same. Without reading all of the evidence from the trial you quoted it's impossible say. I don't have time to research that now. There are often minute differences which make an absolutely huge difference to the outcome. That is the same for lots of situations, the trouble is that people don't see it that way.

So,
2017, a 24yr old crushes the skull of her newborn baby girl and dumps the body under a tree in the park. There is also blood on the spike of the iron rails, indicating that’s how she inflicted the multiple skull injuries. Found not guilty of murder, but infanticide and gets 30days rehabilitation.

2019, an underage 15yr old crushes the skull of her newborn baby boy, then smothers him while unconscious with cotton wool and leaves the body in a bin bag. Found guilty of murder and gets minimum of 12yrs in prison.

Even if we ignore things like potential psychosis, her being underage and a vulnerable teen with an abusive father…even if this 15yr old were another 24yr old adult woman…can you not see the disparity in outcome?

They are substantially the same. Cases do not need to be identical for stare decisis to apply.

“What the doctrine of precedent declares is that cases must be decided the same way when their material facts are the same. Obviously it does not require that all the facts should be the same. We know that in the flux of life all the facts of a case will never recur; but the legally material facts may recur and it is with these that the doctrine is concerned.”
-Glanville Williams.

For the last time: the doctrine of precedent applies to decisions as to the law. Juries do not decide questions of law. They decide questions of fact; they give a simple finding of guilty or not guilty. There is nothing in that simple finding of fact to which the doctrine of precedent could possibly apply. no jury is bound by the findings of another. They couldn’t possibly be, because that finding is related simply to whether guilt has been proven on the facts of that case.
if you don’t believe me, go an observe any crown court trial and see what happens.

A little information in the hands of an idiot is indeed a dangerous thing

The jury found one not guilty of murder and found the other one guilty.

Different cases. Different juries.

And the woman in the article you posted received a 2 year community order in addition to 30 days rehabilitation. And she spent a year in prison on remand.

Cases were very similar. Juries were different, but thats no excuse for such a big difference in outcome. There are grounds for an appeal against the conviction for murder imho.

I'm going to agree to differ. I'm not a lawyer but did have to deal with a particular law in respect of my work, from experience a small difference meant a different decision was made. I'll leave it there before we get bogged down. 9

Not sure why that 9 appeared!!

I’ve never once said juries are bound by other juries or that the precedents set by lower courts are binding. You are like a broken record attacking that which I have not posted and ultimately your knowledge in regards to the doctrine of precedent is sadly limited to binding precedents as you keep ignoring the complex area of case law in regards to persuasive precedents.

In addition, this jury had more than finding of facts, they also had the question of murder/infanticide to decide. That is the part that is not a finding of fact because the difference between the two is wholly based on which subjective expert opinion do you think accurately reflects Mayo’s state of mind at the time. Deciding what another person was thinking when they committed a crime cannot be a fact. It is always an opinion.

Unfortunately it is murder. Had she murdered someone's toddler, there would be no sympathy. No one allowed Jamie Bulger's the same defence of being young. The difference was the fear of getting into trouble element with her parents. She was obviously scared rather than doing something for the sake of committing an act of violence, but nevertheless she did kill this baby. She could have dumped it on a doorstep. However sad it is, it is legally the correct decision. Her age at the time of the crime will be taken into consideration during sentencing.

An appeal under what grounds? The jury considered a conviction of infanticide but they rejected that as felt the evidence for murder was more compelling.

The Judge in the case you linked said there were numerous mitigating factors which influenced his sentencing.

You can't compare the two. In criminal cases as a PP mentioned, numerous factors are taken into consideration in jury deliberation and in sentencing.

It never works to compare criminal cases because they're all very individual.

I do think that the sentence of 12 years is unduly harsh. The courts have greater discretion when sentencing under 18s. It's not in the public interest to put her away for that long.

poor girl...only 15...must have been terrified and overwhelmed going through an ordeal like that alone

You have stated on several occasions that the doctrine of precedent applies here. You now appear to concede that is wrong. Progress.
you are however completely wrong when you state that the jury here or in any case does anything other than decide questions of fact. The question of a defendants state of mind is a question of fact which they must decide based on the evidence before them.

I tend to agree with you. It can only be mysogyny. The judge strikes me as a mysogynist, I thought his comments were awful. Judge 'I accept the prosecutions submissions that, on any view, you knew you were pregnant and about to give birth an hour or so before you did so," said Judge Garnham.
"At that time there is no question of the balance of your mind being disturbed by pregnancy denial or any other condition. You could have asked your mother for help or rung the emergency services. Whilst there might have been grounds for doubting how your mother would have coped, that cannot be said of the emergency services.' , she was an 15 and 4 months and immature with it. She suddenly finds herself going in to labour having denied the pregancy to herself for months but according to him 'there is no question of the balance of your mind being disturbed'. I believe that women who commit infanticide do it because they are in denial that the baby who suddenly comes out of them is actually a real human being. They see it as a miscarriage not a birth. There is research into this. The problem is that the infanticide law, by which she clearly committed infanticide, is out of date and so it is being ignored. This was a VERY clear, textbook case of infanticide, I cannot understand why the jury could not see that and I fear the judge chose not to explain the law to them. As I say, read his sentencing remarks about how the public would vilify her etc. They are mysogynistic and chilling and this sentence should not be allowed to stand.

Are you reading something different to what I've read? The Judges sentencing remarks were sensitive and he clearly stated he had reduced the minimum term from 14 to 12 years.

No, that's not right. The infanticide law was not ignored, it was followed to the letter.

For infanticide to be proven, the jury have to decide, based on the evidence put in front of them, whether the balance of the mother's mind was disturbed. The jury heard evidence from two psychiatrists and were not persuaded that it was.

If there was any issue with the way the expert evidence was presented, PM may possibly be grounds for appeal.

I saw upthread some people questioned how the psychiatrists report can be valid when they didn't examine PM until some time after the event. The psychiatrists will also have had access to the whole bundle of evidence, witness statements etc from the time, and their considered opinion will be based on all of this information. From what I read, even the psychiatrist appointed by her defence was a bit equivocal about whether the balance of her mind was disturbed, and did not suggest she had been suffering from psychosis.

It is still a tragic case for all concerned though and I hope that PM will be able to access support in prison.

Everything posters don't agree with on mumsnet is misogyny🙄
What do.toy feel.would be an appropriate sentence for someone who brutally murdered a defence new born?