To think this women should be guilty of manslaughter not murder?

[TeeJay1970]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46111655

I'm torn on this.

She has left him and was living away. But she put a hammer into her bag and drove to his house. When she got there she hit him 20 times when his back was turned. She had left him, she was in no danger, she must have planned it as she put the hammer in her bag. It all seems like murder.

BUT after years of abuse could thus ne manslaughter? I feel sorry for her not him.

On the bits I’ve read, no I don’t. I think coercive control should be a defence but not in this case. She monitored his phone calls and said “if I can’t have him, nobody can”.

No it’s murder

Murder

Murder.

It's murder, because it's premeditated.

It's murder. Premeditated murder.

Was thinking of starting a thread on this.

If she'd been living with him, and still under his control, deeply unhappy and could see no other way out, then maybe. But she left him, then returned to the house with a hammer, checked his phone to see who he'd called, cooked his dinner, then bludgeoned him to death. She later said, 'If I can't have him, nobody can.'

I don't doubt he was a deeply unpleasant and abusive man. Doesn't change the fact that she murdered him though.

If she had picked something up from the kitchen and killed him with it, it would likely be manslaughter taken into account the circumstances, however she went equipped which puts a different spin on it.

‘Intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention’ needs to be proved for a conviction of murder. Going equipped with a hammer to his house and then hitting him from behind pretty much shows intent to kill I would say and therefore murder is the correct conviction and not manslaughter.

After reading the story it definitely sounds like murder to me. Why would she have taken a hammer in her bag?

It's murder, because it's premeditated.

^ this, and

She monitored his phone calls and said “if I can’t have him, nobody can”.

^ This.

It sounded like a horrible relationship, but you are looking at this through very narrow optics.

Just because somebody might be a less than sympathetic character doesn't make the murderer less culpable. That's a slippery slope, where would the judgement line be drawn.

Thanks for your replies.

Logically I knew it was. But I still feel sorry for her.

Its a sad story and I feel sorry for her son, but I agree it is murder. The only time I think this could be used as a defence is if the abuser were threatening her or keeping her trapped and she felt this was her only way to escape.

The Guardian did a much more in depth feature back in Sept which gives more detail about their relationship Guardian article

I agree that it's murder but am surprised the plea of diminished responsibility didn't carry more weight.

Reading the Guardian article you get the impression that 31 years of his behaviour literally drove her insane, poor woman.