man cleared of murdering his wife [post edited by MNHQ at poster's request]

[JackieWeaverHandforthCouncil]

Fucking joke. There should be an appeal to lengthen the sentence.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/18/anthony-williams-killed-wife-act-of-great-violence-jailed-for-five-years

you need to amend the title. or else it could be libelous.
he was found not guilty of murder.
he pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.

Exactly. He was convicted of manslaughter, however you feel about that.

He tried to kill her in their bedroom. She nearly escaped. He followed her down the stairs and strangled her. She was found in her porch with her keys in her hand.

That is not manslaughter. That is intent to kill.

Absolute fucking joke of a sentence.

I’d like to hear the poor wife’s side of the story. Poor woman .

Ok I’ve reported my post to change the title.

I agree with you OP and fail to understand how he wasn’t convicted of murder rather than manslaughter. She was found by the front door with her keys in her hand apparently trying to escape but he caught up with her, poor woman.

He tied a dressing gown cord around her neck and broke bones. 5 fucking years. Fucking outrage.

He had no history of mental illness but got manslaughter with diminished responsibility??

She tried so hard to get away from him but he was determined, wasn't he. RIP Ruth Williams.

Well, they can’t ask the woman whether she was killed on manslaughtered so it’s all his words, isn’t it?

This is awful. Five fucking days into lockdown, he couldn't cope?!

Another article said he said he was worried about losing his home and having no money, but he and his wife own their home and they had £140k of savings.

Sounds like excuses for losing his temper to me. Five years! A travesty.

For mens rea it would have to be proven that he meant to kill her before he touched her. So I presume that he didn't intend to kill her, just to hurt her/restrain her and the death was a consequence of that - which isn't murder.

It takes more than 5 minutes to kill someone by strangulation @SoVery. He didn't strangle her with his hands, he used a dressing gown belt as a weapon. That's intent.

If you tie a belt around someone's neck for several minutes so tightly that you break bones in their neck, that's intent.

The judge felt sorry for him.

I don't. He killed his wife because she lost patience with him. He killed her because he was angry.

Appalling.
That poor woman.
Even if it was 'just' manslaughter, five years is a joke.
WTF is wrong with the system?

It's especially batshit when you look at the recent speculation about wanting to lock up people who break quarantine for 10 years...

And on the basis that strangulation takes so long to kill someone, I think it should always result in a murder conviction.

Suffocation/asphyxiation features frequently in 'sex games gone wrong' defences that men use to get away with murdering their wives and girlfriends. See wecantconsenttothis.uk/

You have to prove INTENT to murder. Not something that happened purely as a result of his actions.

If anyone is angry about the sentence that this man received as being too lenient, then you may ask the Attorney General to review it. If they agree, they will refer it to the Court of Appeal for them to consider.

You are not wrong. Compare and contrast with the sentences of women who kill their abusive husbands. Sally Challen was sentenced 14 years for the manslaughter of her abusive husband .

www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/sally-challen-appeal

Misogyny is rife in the criminal justice system.

Did he not intend to kill her when he put his hands/cord around her neck and held them there long enough to break bones? Pretty hard to accidentally strangle someone.

@lifeturnsonadime

You are not wrong. Compare and contrast with the sentences of women who kill their abusive husbands. Sally Challen was sentenced 14 years for the manslaughter of her abusive husband .

www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/sally-challen-appeal

Misogyny is rife in the criminal justice system.

This is horrific. I wish someone takes action. Wonder what Ruth’s children think on this sentence.

@SoVery

You have to prove INTENT to murder. Not something that happened purely as a result of his actions.

The CPS says (my bold) :

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:
1 Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
2 Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
3 Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

So the court believed he intended to murder her but also accepted his plea of diminished responsibility. He had not sought any help for his depression and the only evidence he was suffering was from his daughter as far as I can tell who repeated the 'he wouldn't hurt a fly' line that he used.

Five years! What the fuck

@SoVery actually you are incorrect. There is no requirement to show intent to kill. Just intent to cause bodily harm is enough to show Mens rea. I’m a lawyer and this is first year law student stuff.

I honestly cannot believe he has got away with this.

It would be interesting to be able to look at a judge's sentencing record with certain crimes.

Not that this might be the case with this judge. There may be a reason behind the sentence we don't know about.

But if there was a way to check a judges history (other than google) it would indicate it's questionable sentencing, if he's got a track record of sentences that seem lenient