To be appalled that this isn’t murder?

[Bex5490]

Possible the worst headline I’ve read since the woman in France whose husband drugged her and had her raped by strangers…

But what I don’t understand is why it is manslaughter not murder. A violent act is considered murder if the perpetrator intended to do GBH but the person dies in the process.

Is violently raping a woman not intending to do enough harm?

The world is broken. There are rightly or wrongly teenagers on murder charges under joint enterprise laws for being there when spmeone they know has killed someone. If they go somewhere with the intention of beating someone up, even if it isn’t them that turns it into a murder, they can be prosecuted for it. Yet raping a woman isn’t seen as intending to do enough damage?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/37-year-old-mum-raped-33808196

Link to book sorry forgot it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Barrister

@Cockerpooslave what makes you think that?

Thanks for the recommendation - I must have missed these threads but your point about the type of person how can be a juror is really interesting. Especially if this impacts the decisions made by prosecutors because of what they predict a jury will do.

Difficult to give an opinion without all the facts but given that the woman was not in a state to consent her ability to object was also compromised. If the man then orally raped her I’d argue ( tho I’m not a lawyer) that he compromised her ability to breathe beyond what she was able to control. What I mean is a sober, completely conscious woman would be able to bite, fight and/or adjust her breathing during this heinous act enough to stay alive. This woman wasn’t in a state to do that. So as death could be expected to occur he should be tried for murder. ( I only read the first link which I thought sounded somewhat victim blaming. Any decent person would have realised she was in a totally vulnerable state and got help asap)
And I’d hang the bastard.

The problem with this approach is that it will result in lots of acquittals as juries are notoriously squeamish about convicting for serious offences at the best of times and doubly so when it involves an activity that they all do themselves (driving). This is why drivers who kill are not charged with manslaughter but with the lesser offence of causing death by dangerous/careless driving. When they were charged with manslaughter juries routinely let them off.

Depends on if you try to say it was consensual.
Spoiler
https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/

Because it's very unlikely to result in death unless they are also violent in other ways (ie strangulation or hitting forcefully).

I'm not the person you quoted but I think conflating GBH and rape would have the unintended consequence of contributing to the perception that rape is always violent or comes from somebody who obviously intends to harm you.

Ultimately the essential definition of rape is penetration without consent. It's consent of the person being raped (or lack thereof) that's important, not the intentions of the person committing the rape, how the rape is conducted, nor whether harm is perceived by either party. In that sense rape is a very different / separate crime than GBH, though both may be said to occur at the same time in one act.

What I would say is that in the case of whether a murder charge can be applied, intention to rape should be elevated to the same position as intention to commit GBH. That's much more straightforward I think also than having to mix up GBH and rape.

@RunningOutOfImaginitiveUsernames, that's manslaughter? Murder has to have premeditation.

I agree with this. If intent to rape had the same status as intent to cause GBH, then this case would be considered murder.

Cases involving statutory rape where someone isn’t able to legally consent I suppose can’t be seen in the same way as GBH. But the act of rape in all its forms should no way be seen as lesser than GBH.

There is a distinction in law and it's important it's adhered to as the thresholds for conviction are different. It doesn't mean it's less horrific, and a judge can still give a life sentence should they be found guilty, but I can see why some find it uncomfortable- lots assume manslaughter isn't intentional when that isn't necessarily the case. It is an awful crime though, her poor family.

Some men are absolute pigs! Still so much misogynism and violence around. Can you imagine your loved one being so violated when they were so vulnerable and needed help. I hope that he rots in hell.

The rape was not accidental, the death was, therefore manslaughter.

It is a horrible, violent crime. I doubt if the perpetrator will see the light of day again or at least not until he is very old so the consequences will be the same as if it was murder.

Poor woman.

This is so difficult, because the rape was the crime of choice. However, I’m a survivor of a case that’s being trialed as a rape/GBH/attempted manslaughter (not UK)… it’s awful because the aftermath of the GBH/attempted manslaughter is what I struggle with much more than the rape… but the rape is seen as the worst of the three by the system and that’s why I get support in terms of therapy and such.

Also, with regards to rape. It's rarely once.

So I'd like to see consecutive sentences instead of being served as 'concurrent'

Rape is predominantly a crime against women and girls so imo should be sentenced as such

From a legal point, manslaughter has one of the widest sentencing ranges available to judges. Manslaughter can be the OP's original thought and accidental, or it can come about as a result of a lesser crime, or it can be just-not-quite murder. Therefore a judge can give almost any sentence to someone found guilty of manslaughter, from a whole life sentence to a fine or community service.

Hopefully in this case the judge will give a sentence that truly reflects the heinous crime committed.

I only read the headline of this case as it was just so horrible so this thread has brought me up to date with the utter depravity of this case. It made me remember something that happened to a friend of mine. She was attacked by a stranger who orally raped her. He was never caught. She managed her trauma by using alcohol to block it out. Ten years after the attack she died as a consequence of her drinking or as I see it, a consequence of the rape. The attack happened in the 80's and the way she was treated by the police was appalling. They basically accused her of lying, She was on her way back to her boyfriend's flat after being at a party. Police said she had probably been with someone else at the party and made up the rape to deceive her boyfriend. There was no counselling for victims in those days, so my poor friend just used to obliterate herself with booze.

You don’t. You have to show intention and premeditation to kill or do serious harm. So if you set out to brutally assault them and they die of the injuries you inflicted, you are guilty of murder, not manslaughter. The issue raised by the OP is the clear sexism in treating rape as less serious than physical assault in a case where rape leads to the death of the victim. It’s a clear discrepancy.

OP, if you have a half decent MP, write to them about this discrepancy and ask for a review of why violent rape that causes death is not considered to meet the standard of murder when non-sexual violence leading to death is.

If the CPS haven't gone with a murder charge, there'll be a good reason - they probably felt they'd not get a conviction based on the evidence. Manslaughter can carry a life sentence anyway, so it doesn't make much difference whether they go for murder or manslaughter.

Poor woman, what happened to her is utterly vile. May that man rot in prison for his whole life.

Murder is when the person intends to kill another or cause gbh. Manslaughter is when someone dies but that wasn't the intention. Manslaughter with intent is where intention to murder/cause gbh was there but also loss of control or other factor. I assume the intention of defendant was to rape (can't see anything else mentioned aside from rape so this is assumption of no additional violence) not to actually kill her. He has killed her though so now faces upto life imprisonment.

The maximum sentence a judge can impose for rape or manslaughter etc and whether people think it's suitable is a whole different debate and one probably for another thread where it isn't centered around a specific tragic case.

Manslaughter, rape and GBH with intent all carry maximum life sentences. Arguably the fault lies with the judges who hand out too lenient sentences. Murder has a very high burden of proof. Far higher than manslaughter as you cannot convict on a murder charge unless you prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an intent to kill or cause GBH, and a jury has to decide that. It is better to have a likelihood of a conviction than for a person to go free because the jury couldn't decide on intent to kill/cause GBH. Once they have a conviction it is up to the judge to sentence. If they are handing out risible sentences when they could give a higher sentence then the fault lies with them, not necessarily the system. Unless you want to do away with trial by jury.

Well as much as what happened is appalling I don't think the legal system runs on 'yeah but I say it can't be that because I don't like it'

What a disturbing story

That poor poor woman.