Why isn't there more coverage of the case of Yousef Makki?

[WobblyLondoner]

I'm really surprised there isn't more coverage of this case.

"A boy has been cleared of murdering a 17-year-old he stabbed in the heart with a flick knife." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48962845

The defender did kill him so I'm really unclear how he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter - I'm assuming it is because the defendant claimed self-defence but it's not that clear from the reporting. The victim's family are obviously bewildered at the verdict.

Interested in others' views, especially if you've been following the case. The boys involved sound like absolute idiots but the trial result does seem curious.

They are privileged middle class kids with wealthy parents and probably a very expensive lawyer. The family of Yousef have no justice for their son. I was sickened when the news about the verdict came through last night.

Forgive my legal ignorance, so if someone is charged with murder they cannot then be found guilty of manslaughter, is that right? So this is partly about the decision of the CPS to charge with murder not manslaughter?

I posted originally because I was surprised at the lack of national coverage (especially given the knife crime furore) and also because the coverage I saw was so unhelpful in untangling what had happened. Appreciate completely that what happens in the jury room stays there, but I wanted to understand how they reached a decision that, on the basis of what has been covered in the (non local) media, seems odd.

I was surprised at the verdict but read that the three boys all carried knives and acted like ‘gangsters.’ I assume it could not be proven that he intended to kill his friend.

I thought there was a lot of coverage in the national press.

When it first hit the news it was presented as if the victim was a random innocent victim of knife crime. Much was made of him being clever and privately educated.

You don't need to prove intent to murder for a conviction. In basic terms you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intended or was reckless as to their actions causing serious physical harm.

I have read bits about it , I live in Greater Manchester but no where near Hale Barns, the defence seems to be that all of them were playing at being gangsters and now one of them is dead ,I think Murder would have been difficult to prove ,but why not manslaughter ?

I can 100% guarantee that boy a is not from an Asian background.
I have physically been in the same room as him.
You maybe right about boy b as I only know his name but have been told he is white.
I just feel so very very sorry for Yousef's family.
Is boy a likely to get a prison sentence for the offences he has pleaded guilty to?
(Perverting the course of justice and possession of a knife)
I'm guessing probably not.

#Kit30 boy One is definitely white middle class not Asian!

I think I need to read more about the case . I totally get why it is not murder , but why not manslaughter? I really don't get that bit . Just because he was not a perfect human being does that mean his family don't deserve justice ?

there is some misinformation on some posts -

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

as soon as you use a knife then to me its manslaughter - especially if its true there was no proof the victim had a knife .

I wonder what the police who were involved feel?

The defender did kill him so I'm really unclear how he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter - I'm assuming it is because the defendant claimed self-defence but it's not that clear from the reporting. The victim's family are obviously bewildered at the verdict.

I don’t see what was unclear? He was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence, which is a complete defence.

Much has been made of the “public schoolboy” angle. The facts of what the three of them were up to directly before the killing are quite illuminating.

According to the Manchester Evening News, boy 1 was acquitted of both Murder and the alternative charge of man slaughter.

Boy A had Alistair Webster as his barrister so he did have the best defence money could buy. The barrister successfully ran a defence of self defence. If the defence is made out it’s a complete defence.

Boy A plead guilty to charges re possession of the knife and preventing the course of justice which I would assume are likely to result in a custodial sentence in a couple of weeks when he returns for sentencing.

Thanks to those clarifying the issues re murder and manslaughter, and self defence. I'm now much clearer.

Will be interesting to see how much of a custodial he will be given for the knife offences.

Was he out on bail or will he get time already served?

Classic case of money talks..........

The two defendants were middle class not sure of ethnicity but victim was non white and from a modest background not hard to figure out why he was less likely to get justice

An absolute travesty of justice for the victim and his family. It just shows that white male privilege is alive and well in 2019. I feel sickened by the verdicts. How on earth they can they been not guilty of the charges?

I also have been shocked by the la know national press coverage.

Classic case of money talks..........

Alternatively, one could argue that if three teenage boys from a council sink estate obsessed with knives, cannabis, etc were running around armed and trying to rob drug dealers - would there be such an outcry over the fate of one of them at the hands of the others?

How on earth they can they been not guilty of the charges?

Jury obviously accepted he was acting in self defence. His version of events is that deceased pulled a knife on him first.

I read something that suggested one of the accused had form for pulling knives on people during arguments but not sure whether the jury got to hear that...

www.change.org/p/government-bring-yousef-makki-s-murderers-to-justice

Thanks Frolie I've just signed that.

I was a juror on a murder trial. The jury won't have read up about the case in the media because it's a criminal offence to do so, they will only go on the evidence that is presented in court.

There are quite a few different factors which can trigger a manslaughter verdict, not just self defence.