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.

Thank you. And I agree.

But I also think a lot of posters don't understand what 'disturbed balance of mind' means legally in regards to an infanticide defense. In simple terms it means the individual was suffering from some kind of psychological disturbance or mental illness at the point of the offence that they did not really understand what they were doing and/or did not understand that what they were doing was wrong. I have really simplified it there but that's the general jist.

It doesn't mean 'under severe emotional stress or experiencing a traumatic event' which would cover virtually every single woman giving birth.

Paris murdered her child and demonstrated 'presence of mind' when she lied to Police and others about her actions in an attempt to cover up her crime. She had gone through a traumatic event yes, but her calculated lying giving what she thought could be reasonable explanations for the child's injuries mean she wasn't suffering from a disturbance of the mind that would be clinically diagnosed or seen as relevant legally in terms of prosecution.

Her own legal defence team did not even offer evidence of that. So why posters here think ir was 'clearly infanticide' is beyond me.

poor girl, what she is going through😪

The reason is that some people find it very difficult to accept an outcome that is not in accordance with what they think should happen and haven’t enough humility to think that maybe the people who actually heard the evidence are better placed than them to judge.

This should probably be for another thread but it is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate thing to do to comment on a verdict in a democracy. If this didn’t happen from time to time and the authority of judge and jury was never questioned then then many past miscarriages of justice would not have been righted.

This is nothing about humility either. It is about having the right to observe, question and comment. Having served twice on a jury I have every respect for the process and the level of detail assessed but no one can argue that the system is infallible.

I don’t really know what has happened to Mumsnet of late or what people are being taught at university. It used to be the case that one could express a view on a thread in a reasonable manner and someone else could express the opposite view - both posters would read one another’s opinions with interest - and that was that. But nowadays everyone seems to resort to superiority or insults if other posters aren’t in accordance with exactly what they believe.

Why can’t people be cool with other posters holding different opinions to them? It doesn’t mean you agree with it! Just that you acknowledge they have a right to express it.

It’s all getting very tedious indeed.

People can comment; I’m entitled to comment in response that to say a jury must have got it wrong when they heard the case and you didn’t is plain daft. A statement I’m happy to stand by.

But posters who hold a different view to your own have been told by others that their contribution was “shite” and sarcastic comments have been made that the “judge and jury would submit to them now” and we have been called hypocrites … all for holding a different opinion to the majority. So when you say people can comment - yes they can - but not without being insulted apparently.

No, what you are roughly describing is more akin to manslaughter with diminished responsibility NOT the disturbed balance of mind required for infanticide.

Her “calculated lying” was per the psychiatrist for the defence not lying, but her recounting false memories.

Her defence DID offer evidence of disturbed balance of the mind by way of Dr Sanford a psychiatrist who assessed her and it was his conclusion the balance of her mind was disturbed.

Completely agree.

The trouble is not all opinions are of equal worth. The opinion of a jury which has heard all the evidence is clearly worth more than that of a bunch of mumsnetters with their dander up because a court has made a decision they don’t like. There’s no getting round that, I’m afraid.

She has grounds to appeal. There is more than enough evidence to support a verdict of infanticide. The judge did not say she lied at all, much less in a “calculated manner”

Read his remarks here- nothing saying she lied at all.
https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-06-26/judges-remarks-as-teenage-mum-jailed-for-killing-newborn

she has grounds to appeal, does she? What are those, exactly? Where did the judge get the law wrong, or direct the jury incorrectly?

I have conceded nothing, the doctrine of precedent includes persuasive precedents as well as binding precedents. I have posted proof of this.

The question of anyone’s state of mind cannot be a fact because it is inherently subjective. It is always a matter of opinion. We just rely on expert opinion so as to make it more likely to be a good opinion as opposed to a bad opinion.

Or/and they are on the wind up (which is horrific). Have already put I should step away from this thread due to PMs sympathisers as its really messing with my head all the 'poor her' as a mum to a new born and who lost a baby previously.

I agree and I'm sorry for your loss
Its unthinkable what she did to.that.defenceless baby

Agree. I'm really surprised people are trying to explain this away. It was horrifically violent.

You asked this on the other thread, or at least someone did and I responded.
Essentially the prosecution’s expert evidence the jury relied on for their determination of murder was not impartial nor objective and therefore should not have been admissible. The defence counsel should have objected to it.
The obiter dictum of the sentencing remarks state as much. As it is a fatal flaw causing a miscarriage of justice, the court of appeal would hear it despite the failure to object. I would expect the murder conviction to be quashed and a new trial ordered.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35/pd_part35

Opinions may not be of equal weight, but it’s only Mumsnet Towers who gets to decide which posts stand and which do not I’m afraid. I object to certain posters insulting other people’s opinions on an open discussion forum. Especially when they are just Mumsnetters too!

Everyone has a right to express their opinion on here without others being, frankly, rude. And that holds true if you are a criminal barrister or a dinner lady in your day job. And one poster doesn’t get to be judge and jury over another I’m afraid. There’s a difference between contradicting an opinion and insulting others for holding it. Or saying they can’t hold it all!

Do you think those of us who are suggesting that the young women in this case may have a right to appeal don’t have the wit and intelligence to understand how a court case works? And actually many previous cases have been reviewed owing to a build up of public opinion about a trial which has caught the interest of an MP who has brought it to the attention of the correct authorities. So there is merit in questioning a verdict occasionallly. Especially when we know historically that the criminal justice system hasn’t always been the fairest of places when it comes to the treatment of young women.

I have just noted I accidentally linked the civil rules, was in a hurry. Although this was a criminal trial the rules for experts are the same.

Whitakers · 27/06/2023 07:51
The sentence isn’t surprising for a murder conviction- it’s mandatory. For me it’s the decision to prosecute her for murder rather than infanticide. If infanticide isn’t the appropriate offence for a teenager who secretly gives birth in her bedroom, I struggle to see when it would be appropriate

Re: the decision to prosecute for murder rather than Infanticide.

It turns out that now days the CPS never prosecutes for Infanticide. They are just ignoring U.K. law and replacing it with murder as though Infanticide doesn’t exist.

The whole slant of the trial will have been different because of it. It already was because of waiting till she was 19 then trying her in an adult court, without anonymity.

By the time the judge told the jury they could look for a verdict of Infanticide rather than murder, it was only just before they were about to retire. They would barely know what Infanticide is as phenomenon as well as a criminal charge.

For example it is known, but not by the public generally, that denial of pregnancy is a real psychological syndrome and can be a danger for Infanticide.

Instead of which the jury had been presented by the prosecution for murder with ‘denial’ as a lie carried over 9 months in order to pave the way for the planned deliberate murder of the baby when it came.

In response to a recent freedom of information request, the Crown Prosecution Service do not use infanticide as an alternative offence. In all six cases where women were found guilty of infanticide or attempted infanticide they were initially charged with murder and left to the jury to decide if infanticide occurred (Crown Prosecution Service 2014)
https://www.britishjournalofmidwifery.com/content/legal/dealing-with-incidents-of-feticide-and-infanticide-in-england-and-wales

https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

I don't think that is necessarily an issue. It is consistent with how they treat other psychiatric defences. E.g. charge of murder can be 'downgraded' to manslaughter with diminished responsibility, but the person isn't charged with manslaughter in the first instance. The alternative charge is only considered on the back of psychiatric evidence.

It must be really awful for the accused person who still has to face the murder charge, even when the evidence is clear that they were mentally ill, although where the psychiatrists agree, I think the case is often settled without trial. But in PM's case, of course, the psychiatrists did not agree.

I disagree, Infanticide is a specific crime and both a crime and a defence. It also has a different threshold of proof required. The prosecution has to prove it was not Infanticide, rather than the defence prove someone cannot take responsibility because of a mental state.

The dynamic of the trial would inevitably be different.

Some woman can be just as bad/ evil whatever you call it as men. But there are a lot women who do try and find an excuse for any violent acts. For some there are valid reasons and for others they are just horrible people. There’s not always an excuse. I think that was the posters point?