Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To agree that Tony Martin's murder conviction should be over turned?

342 replies

FeckingEll · 16/11/2018 00:11

Just read an article that he is appealing against his conviction so his name is cleared before he dies. It always troubled me.

Putting myself in the position of living in a isolated farm which had been continously burgled, probably living in a state of hyper vigilance. Home invaded by a group of young men in the middle of the night. It was not right that he shot when they were not actually advancing towards him but he wouldn't have known that they weren't going to turn round and come back.

He didn't seek anyone out to kill them and he couldn't have been expected to have taken account of the age of the people who had invaded his home.

Much was made of him 'booby trapping' his house but who wouldn't so you could hear if anyone got in while you were sleeping?

The people responsible for the 16 year olds death were the adults who took him with them to invade someone else's house! It could easily have been Tony who was murdered. If someone invades your home in the middle of the night, you can expect that to be a potential outcome, no?

The way Tony was portrayed in the media was abhorrent especially as it has come out that he is on the autism spectrum.

?

OP posts:
StopTheHistrionics · 16/11/2018 06:58

maddiemookins16mum

He was released in 2003 after serving only 3 years.

Aridane · 16/11/2018 06:58

maddie - he has been released!

Aridane · 16/11/2018 06:58

(it’s now just about ‘clearing his name’...)

Elfinablender · 16/11/2018 07:01

He shot the lad in the back. It wasn't self defense it was retribution. YABU.

Aridane · 16/11/2018 07:04

You should read martins court judgements. There was no mental illness affecting his judgement when he killed the burglar. No mention of Asperger although I guess that could’ve been later diagnosed- although of course, having Asperger doesn’t make one a killer.

My understanding was that Martin’s mental ill health was the reason on appeal that his murder conviction was reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter

^After Mr Martin's trial and conviction the new defence team instructed another distinguished psychiatrist, Dr Joseph, to see Mr Martin and prepare a report. He conducted two lengthy interviews with Mr Martin. He found that Mr Martin suffers from, and was suffering from at the time of the offence, a long-standing paranoid personality disorder which can be classified as an abnormality of the mind arising from inherent causes within the terms of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. It was and remains the opinion of Dr Joseph that if Mr Martin intended to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm when he actually killed Barras, then his mental responsibility was substantially diminished.
Dr Joseph also found that Mr Martin had suffered from recurrent bouts of depression throughout his adult life and was suffering from ŷdepression at the time of the killing. This condition was a disease of the mind which exacerbated his paranoid personality disorder^

...

For these reasons the fresh medical evidence has no bearing on the jury's rejection of Mr Martin's contention that he was entitled to be acquitted on the grounds that he was acting in self-defence. The position as to the fresh evidence relating to diminished responsibility is different. Here the evidence is admissible and relevant. The jury did not have the opportunity of considering this issue. Although the issue was never raised at the trial this was because the evidence was not then available to Mr Martin. Mr Martin is entitled to rely on the evidence for the purposes of his appeal. (R v Weekes [1999] Crim LR 907) The conviction for murder must therefore be quashed.

Aridane · 16/11/2018 07:04

(italics fail above in the first quote from the Court of Appeal judgment)

BentNeckLady · 16/11/2018 07:05

Having been burgled myself I can only think it’s a shame more homeowners don’t take the law in to their hands and kill the little cunts responsible.

Break in to someone’s property a get shot? Serves you right.

LostontheWestway · 16/11/2018 07:18

I've never been able to make up my mind about the rights and wrongs of this case but the C4 programme that's on this week is actors doing a verbatim version of the interviews so the body language, positioning, words and tone are all directly lifted from the interview tapes with no artistic license. I think it'll be an interesting watch.

Miscible · 16/11/2018 07:34

You make the decision to enter someone's house illegally, then you take your chances and accept any consequences imo.

And if you make the decision to keep a firearm illegally, lie in wait for intruders and shoot them whilst running away, you also accept any consequences.

I'd be interested to know what the burglary statistics were for the 6m-1yr after that happened

No different, apparently.

Miscible · 16/11/2018 07:40

If they weren't there, they wouldn't have got shot

Simple as

But if you say that mere trespassing is a good enough excuse for shooting the person involved, look at the potential dangers. Someone with dementia walks into someone else's house because they think it's theirs and is killed - but it's OK because if they weren't there they wouldn't have got shot? The son of the family comes home unexpectedly in the middle of the night, householder decides it could be a burglar and decides to shoot because he knows the law will say shooting at intruders is fine? A husband shoots his wife deliberately but gets away with it because he says he thought she was a burglar?

Caprisunorange · 16/11/2018 07:45

Yes Ariadne- I think we’re saying the same thing? His mental illness wasn’t a reason for him killing ie he did not have diminished responsibility

Satsumaeater · 16/11/2018 07:45

A husband shoots his wife deliberately but gets away with it because he says he thought she was a burglar

Isn't this more or less that Oscar Pistorius did? Not that he got away with it in the end.

No I think Tony Martin probably got his just desserts. He did murder someone and he wasn't acting in self-defence. But he was released early and so the special circumstances were ultimately taken into account.

DaisysStew · 16/11/2018 07:46

I’ve also been burgled, they broke in through the window while me and my child slept upstairs. I think the people who did it are scum - but they don’t deserve to die for it.

Miscible · 16/11/2018 07:51

He fired towards them, probably in utter panic. Tough luck they were hit in my view.

No, he lay in wait for them and boasted about what he was planning to do.

I read it as he was firing towards the sound of them. I can imagine disorientation if just waking up. Adrenaline pumping. Hardly cold blooded murder IMO.

It doesn't really matter what fantasy you can imagine. Don't you think the jury who heard and saw all the witnesses might know a bit more than you?

BertrandRussell · 16/11/2018 07:53

"is actors doing a verbatim version of the interviews so the body language, positioning, words and tone are all directly lifted from the interview tapes with no artistic license. I think it'll be an interesting watch."
Yep. And the criminologists of Mumsnet will be able to reach their verdict......

Andromeida59 · 16/11/2018 07:55

YABVU, OP. In regard to the point about if someone is in your home then you should be able to use reasonable force. Look at the case from earlier this year of Richard Osbourne-brooks. He was the pensioner that killed the burglar. The burglar presented an on going threat and both Osbourne-Brooks and his wife were in the property and being threatened with weapons. The threat was on-going so the force being used was seen as being justified.

The action being taken by Tony Martin was unjustified as the burglars were leaving and he had a gun that he'd obtained illegally.

Caprisunorange · 16/11/2018 07:58

They wouldn’t be able to do that though would they?

One burglar is dead

Tony Martin lied throughout his testimony and interview

The second burglar was walking through an unfamiliar dilupatidated environment in the dark and didn’t fully understand the layout of the house anyway

Despite Tony Martins evidence he was standing on the staircase shooting wildly the foresesic evidence showed repeatedly he was in the same room as the burglars, face on, and was shooting as the scrambled out the window (Shot residue was found near the window frame)

ButchyRestingFace · 16/11/2018 07:59

I thought his conviction was already downgraded to manslaughter? I seem to recall there really wasn’t an iota of regret or remorse demonstrated by him at the time (at least that’s how it was reported).

To try to get that conviction overturned now - if true - suggests he still doesn’t think he did anything wrong or would make a different choice if he could do it all again.

To the people saying you leave “all” your rights on the other side of the window when you burgle and anything goes thereafter, really??

What if Martin hadn’t shot the boy? What if he’d dragged him back into the farm, tied him up and then tortured him for a few hours before killing him? Is that okay? After all, it’s perfectly consistent with the idea that you forefeit all rights when you burgle someone.

Killing someone is self-defence is and should be allowed under the law. But Martin had previous for threatening to kill trespassers. Whether he was lying in wait with a loaded weapon is probably debatable, but he shot a young boy/man in the back as he was fleeing the property and didn’t seem to regret his actions even much later. I think a manslaughter conviction was appropriate in the circumstances.

CrazySheepLady · 16/11/2018 08:11

Sorry, OP, but you are BVU.

Martin didn't have a licence to own a firearm, the gun he used was illegally held, he had made threats about shooting intruders and he repeatedly laid in wait in an empty house he didn't even live in. To top it all off, he shot the kid in the back, so can't claim to have been defending himself and any denial of premeditation is crap, imo.

Homeowners/occupiers can't be judge, jury and executioner. Martin was little more than a vigilante. I believe that the murder conviction should have stood and that he should still be in prison.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 16/11/2018 08:14

You break into someone's home with the intent to commit a crime you take your chances.

NewYoiker · 16/11/2018 08:16

The moment the burglar turned and ran was the moment Tony Martin should have stopped shooting.

MrsStrowman · 16/11/2018 08:18

I think he should have been released which he was, but this wasn't the first time he shot at someone either

OzzyMadBat · 16/11/2018 08:26
onefootinthegrave · 16/11/2018 08:26

agree with everything ladygodiva said. He was waiting for them and shot FB in the back as he was running away. It was pre-meditated. He should have been convicted for murder, not have his manslaughter conviction quoshed.
Everyone knows that burglary is wrong. The punishment in law isn't murder though, is it?

Exhaustedmummy1811 · 16/11/2018 08:45

This happened in the town I lived in at the time. I knew brendon fearon at the time (one of the other boys with him) aside from being upset about his friend, he spent years bragging about how they had terrorised Tony on many occasions, the man was scared to live j his own home. I'm not defending what he did at all but on some level I can't say I am surprised he eventually snapped. Brendon also got compo after the trial and loved making a joke about the fact he had been paid to Rob someone. All I'm saying is it isn't always as clear cut as the papers make it.
Just want to be clear I was never friends with Brandon but lived on the same street for a couple of years and new many people who did know him well