So if a man stabs his wife four times it's not actually murder if she's leaving him fir another man

[iPaid]

It's manslaughter apparently. The poor husband snaps, reaches for a knife and sticks it into her 4 times but isn't found guilty of murder because y'know what's a man to do when he knows his missus has got another chap?

Daily Mail link because my iPad is crashing on other newspapers.

And he'll probably be out in less than 8 years

But the point is how long do you need to have to premeditate a murder? 5 minutes, 2 minutes, 2 days? If you pick up a knife and then stab someone with the intention of killing them then that is premeditated. Stabbing them 4 times is proof of the intention of killing them. If he had stabbed her once, then in horror called an ambulance then there would be at least some defence.

The only thing is that I thought 'normal' lifers got out after about 8 years anyway usually?

I believe it was mentioned earlier in the thread that in the UK it's not used premeditation, but intention.

So how long does it need to be premeditated rather than intended?

By stabbing 4 times, surely there is 4 separate intentions? Unless the positions of the stabs are crucial?

Let's hope this is appealed

The prosecution cannot appeal against an acquittal unless there is "new and compelling evidence". Simply disagreeing with the jury's verdict is inadequate. They can appeal against sentence if it is unduly lenient. Given the nature of the conviction a sentence of 15 years does not appear to be unduly lenient.

Stabbing them 4 times is proof of the intention of killing them

Manslaughter is not necessarily unintentional.

On the basis of the information available I believe he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. This covers cases where, at the time of the killing, the accused intended to kill the victim but there are circumstances that reduce their culpability. There are three forms of voluntary manslaughter:

• diminished responsibility
• loss of control
• suicide pact

In this case it appears the defence was loss of control. Under this part of the relevant law it does not matter if the loss of control was sudden but control must have been lost following what is referred to in law as a "qualifying trigger". Even if there has been a delay between the trigger and the killing (which does not appear to be the case here) the defence of loss of control may still be viable. The judge must decide whether the delay renders the defence untenable, in which case it will not be put to the jury. Even if the judge decides to allow this defence to be put to the jury it is still their decision whether or not to accept it.

Just to reiterate, the judge in this case did not direct the jury towards a manslaughter verdict. The judge simply explained the law to them. They then decided that such a verdict was appropriate given the evidence they had heard. This will have given them a lot more detail than we get from the simplified version presented by the press.

^What prh said.

There's absolutely no dispute that he intended to wound or kill. The defence (almost certainly) haven't claimed that he didn't it. But he's (presumably) claimed that his mental state was one of loss of control, which can reduce the murder conviction to manslaughter.

It wouldn't matter if there was CCTV footage of him saying "I'm going to kill you" at the beginning and "I've killed you and I'm happy about that" at the end - it could still be voluntary manslaughter. And in certain cases where the killer had suffered horrible ongoing abuse at the hands of the victim that would be fair enough IMO - doesn't sound that way in this case though.

Thanks for your posts prh47bridge.

I don't like what you say on these threads at first but I know it's correct and measured. And it gets me out of my blind, outraged fogginess.

I thought murder required 'malice aforethought', ie planning and intention.

I like prh47bridge's posts, for the same reasons.

But the jury chose not to convict him of murder. They accepted the triggering effect of his wife's infidelity. So if you commit adultery your husband can get away with murder by sticking a knife into you 4 times because you made him lose control.

Have I got that right?

What some people have been saying is that the jury will probably have heard a bit more than "she committed adultery and he lost it".

Still, I'd assume that there is very little but his word for it, and it's his actions after killing her that would cast doubt in my mind on his description of what happened when he killed her.

On the other hand, we must remember that a defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt, so with no further evidence to the contrary, if a jury can't be sure that what happened in his mind is what he said, then they should go for the lesser crime.

Seems quite unfair.

No you haven't.

Sexual infidelity is not in and of itself a qualifying trigger. You have to look at the context. In this case based on the press reports the trigger appears to have been a blazing row during which she told him she had slept with someone else and was leaving him.

But why believe him that she said any of that? Obviously she couldn't give evidence.

And can any man who kills his wife use that as a defence. 'She said she was going to leave me m'lud, I lost control and before I knew it a knife appeared in my hand and I stuck it in her over and over again'.

I doubt that the jury took his word alone but I wasn't in court. Neither were you. So we don't know exactly what evidence the jury had to consider.

And can any man who kills his wife use that as a defence

Any man who kills his wife could attempt to use the same defence just as any woman who kills her husband could attempt to use the same defence. That doesn't mean it would succeed.

For an example of a woman using a similar defence I would refer you to the case of Patricia Wakeford who killed her husband by stabbing him after he confessed to an affair. She was similarly acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. Indeed, the evidence available from research suggests women are more likely to succeed with this kind of defence than men.

iPaid yes, you've got that entirely right I'm afraid.

In our law, the jury don't have to believe the defendant. They just have to think it might have happened in the way he says. With the main witness dead, it will always be difficult to prove that the Crown's case is beyond reasonable doubt when he has a potentially reasonable point. Even if she is spinning in her grave while it's put forward

Did the jury have an option to find him guilty of murder?

He's a bit of a liability when it comes to women

www.kentonline.co.uk/sandwich/news/ex-girlfriend-of-killer-husband-cudworth-49298/

Yes it was the jury's choice whether to believe his defence of loss of control.

Actually, it was for the jury to evaluate the evidence that he was in control. They'd have to start from an assumption of innocence and evaluate if the evidence saying it was him who did it, and with intent and no excuses, was sufficiently strong.
The burden is always in the accusation.

Not quite - the burden is reversed to some extent when it comes to partial defences, so there does have to be some actual evidence that the loss of control scenario is possible before the judge lets it come into play. Otherwise the prosecution would have to prove the absence of LOC or DR for every single murder trial which would be philosophically tricky.

But surely what the "evidence" for loss of control does is to cast reasonable doubt on the scenario of being in control.

And why should't every prosecutor have to show that there was no loss of control, beyond any reasonable doubt?

Did the jury have an option to find him guilty of murder?

Yes.

It seems unfair because it is. She doesn't get to have a say - he does.