Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

This jury are on glue [Content warning added by MNHQ: child abuse]

120 replies

whatsthataboutthen · 06/08/2021 23:21

How, just how, can this jury decide that this couple didn't murder the child, but "only" guilty of manslaughter?

The mother had threatened to kill her in a text a few days previously, and the child was found with multiple broken ribs and sternum and other fractures from previous abuse, but the jury decided her death wasn't murder? What the actual fuck? Whoever the defence lawyer was really stitched up the jury, or they were on glue...how can any sane person say this wasn't premeditated?

news.sky.com/story/amp/kaylee-jade-priest-mother-and-ex-boyfriend-jailed-for-killing-girl-three-after-her-cries-interrupted-them-having-sex-12374662

OP posts:

SimonJT · 07/08/2021 08:16

Hang on, so you think the jury decide what someone is charged with?

When exactly do you think this happens, considering in serious cases charges can be brought years before the case reaches court.

sashh · 07/08/2021 08:17

How, just how, can this jury decide that this couple didn't murder the child, but "only" guilty of manslaughter?

This is a horrible thing to say, but I'm going to.

If they were on trial for murder the jury would need to believe it was premeditated.

When a child is being hit / abused / neglected all the time then it is easy for the defence to argue this was just more abuse with no intention to kill. Intention to hurt but not to kill.

BoaCunstrictor · 07/08/2021 08:17

You clearly know absolutely fuck all if you think juries decide what the charges are OP. How embarrassing for you.

Neverrains · 07/08/2021 08:22

According to this article there was a friend of the boyfriend at the flat the night the little girl was attacked. It’s the first I’ve heard of this. Was he charged? Did he give evidence?

This was reported early on, when the poor child died. He mentioned that the child was being sick throughout the night.
Yes he would have given evidence if he was available to do so.

ineedaholidaynow · 07/08/2021 08:28

I would hate to be on the defence team in cases like this

Missingtheedge · 07/08/2021 08:28

These cases are heartbreaking and sadly UK law punishment does not fit the crime. Cases like these deserve a minimum sentence of 30 years etc, no releasing early either - not a paltry 9-15 years. These ‘parents’ will probably be kept separate from the general prison population for their safety, learn a new skill or two, and be released over halfway into their sentences for good behaviour etc. No justice for the innocent lives lost

If their children are so inconvenient in their lives why don’t people like this hand them over to SS or relatives? Or they must enjoy abusing them then?

BananaMilkshakeWithCream · 07/08/2021 08:41

The jury had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was murdered and by whom. There was obviously some doubt there so they had to go with manslaughter. It sucks but that’s the law. Hopefully they’ll get their just desserts in prison.

Datingandnoideahowto · 07/08/2021 08:41

@BananaMilkshakeWithCream

This just wrong.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 08:48

@Datingandnoideahowto

It’s because they don’t know which one of them did it. They don’t have evidence either way of who did it and neither have admitted it.

Exactly.

The legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case is "beyond reasonable doubt."

You can't send them both down as you know one of them did it and can't prove which one. There is reasonable doubt as to which one did it.

People who don't work in the legal profession just don't get it.

I often see people up in arms that someone went down for manslaughter rather than murder. The general public have no idea how difficult it is to satisfy the legal burden of proof for murder and it's much easier to convict someone of manslaughter.

As for on glue...wtf?! How speaks like that I've never heard anyone use that term in real life.

Carthief · 07/08/2021 08:51

@BananaMilkshakeWithCream

The jury had to prove nothing.

The prosecution had to prove this, the defence have to disprove it.

The jury sits there, listens and makes a decision of guilt based only on the evidence they heard.

The judge then sentences based on guidelines for the charge the CPS has brought.

There we go, (extremely) basic criminal law 101.

Now we can stop blaming the jury for this only being a manslaughter conviction.

For what it’s worth, the length of the sentence is what stinks but again the judge can only sentence within the guidelines they’re given.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 08:51

Murder is a specific intent offence. Manslaughter is basic intent and it is much easier to convict for it

If you only go for murder and can't prove it they walk. If you go for manslaughter it's easier to convict and they'll do time in prison.

TeachesOfPeaches · 07/08/2021 08:53

The decision to charge someone with murder or manslaughter happens way before the defendants get to court and it isn't decided by the jury, it's decided by the Crown Prosecution Service and has a very high threshold for approval.

The Jury's job is to determine whether the defendants are guilty or not guilty relying only on the evidence given in court.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 08:53

The prosecution had to prove this, the defence have to disprove it.

Wrong again.

The defence don't have to prove or disprove anything unless they are pleading self defence.

ActonSquirrel · 07/08/2021 08:54

Of course if the defence don't give evidence to disprove anything them they'll likely go down. But they don't actually have to.

Terhou · 07/08/2021 09:02

These ‘parents’ will probably be kept separate from the general prison population for their safety, learn a new skill or two, and be released over halfway into their sentences for good behaviour etc.

The report indicates that they won't even begin to be considered for parole till at least two thirds through their respective sentences.

Terhou · 07/08/2021 09:04

It’s because they don’t know which one of them did it. They don’t have evidence either way of who did it and neither have admitted it.

Should both be murder then

It really can't work like that. There are some cases like this where one party is genuinely innocent and the other is simply a very determined liar. It would be grossly unjust for the innocent party to be found guilty of murder.

Carthief · 07/08/2021 09:08

Oh of course @ActonSquirrel the defence totally don’t have to do anything, it’s not actually necessary to even have a defence.

But for the sake of clarifying for those people who don’t understand the basic function of the jury let’s assume there’s a working defence whose literal job is to present their clients side? Which generally involves some form of evidence no?

SnottyLottie · 07/08/2021 09:09

It’s because if they went for a murder charge, either one or both of them could have away with it.

Murder implies there was intent to end the life and that it was premeditated. The defendants both denied doing it and blamed each other. There was no definitive proof of who actually beat her up or who landed the fatal blow. They could have both, in theory, walked free.

A Manslaughter charge (which is killing without intent or forethought) ensured both of them got found guilty, as she was killed by their actions (they have proof she was killed on their property when both of them were present so it was at one of their hands) and that even if it was only one of them that actually killed her, the other did nothing to stop it and neither called the emergency services until she was already dead.

Blame the legal system, not the jurors.

CornishPastyDownUnder · 07/08/2021 09:14

rest assured theyll get a swift and hefty dose of retribution once inside..theres a big difference between crimes-nonces&child-killers are unlikely to make it through a sentence.

Terhou · 07/08/2021 09:18

I really wish people wouldn't cheer at the prospect of other prisoners beating up people like this. You're just encouraging deeply unpleasant violent people who do it to enhance their power, not because they actually have any moral superiority to their victims. And frankly it makes you no better than them.

KurtWilde · 07/08/2021 09:27

This has been really bothering me actually. They purposefully set about and killed that little girl, and they got a manslaughter charge. Just like the teen mum leaving the toddler for 6 days. I can't even imagine what that poor tot went through.

Manslaughter meaning they didn't intentionally kill them, right? But of course they knew that's what would happen ffs!

Yet in the US a teen mum has just been charged with murder for falling asleep in the bath with her baby laid on her. She'd taken drugs prior, got in the bath with the baby and fallen asleep, and obviously the baby drowned. For me, as awful as it is, THAT is more akin to manslaughter or accidental death than murder.

In the U.K. all these cases have shown is that you can get away with murder. The system is insane.

VienneseWhirligig · 07/08/2021 09:32

I did jury service on a heinous murder case. The way the charges were stated, the first directive was to consider murder. If the murder charge could not be proven because the prosecution had not shown beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants had committed it (and we had to take each defendant as a separate case, despite them acting together) we had to acquit, but if we did then we had to consider manslaughter rather than an outright acquittal because we knew that one of them had admitted the killing but claimed it was self defence (it obviously wasn't in this case). There are lots of instructions for juries and a whole set of questions and a process flow that explains how to come to a decision, so it appears from what I've read about this case that the evidence didn't specifically lead the jury to be 100% convinced that one or both of them did the act itself (prob not enough specifics to show which one did it) so manslaughter was the only option.

AbsolutelyPatsy · 07/08/2021 09:40

animals,
the mother had low intelligence it seems and the father is an absolute vile excuse

AbsolutelyPatsy · 07/08/2021 09:41

boyfriend that should say

readytosell · 07/08/2021 09:42

Firstly, brush up on some basics of the legal system and how it works.

Secondly, if it bothers you that much instead of posting on an online forum, get out there and campaign for a change in the law. Take charge and take action.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5