Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

I don't understand how this is manslaughter and not murder

221 replies

lifeonmars100 · 08/04/2025 15:15

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/08/two-teenagers-found-guilty- by of-manslaughter-of-80-year-old-man-in-leicestershire-park?CMP=sharebtnurl

I am sure I am not alone in being disturbed and upset by this awful case. I can't stop thinking about this poor man, setting off for a stroll with his dog and then to be the victim of a vicious unprovoked attack of such severity that he died as a result of it. I can't understand how the boy was found guilty of manslaughter and not murder. I appreciate that a murder conviction hinges on "intent" i.e what was in the defendant's mind when they committed the offence and of course I was not in court to hear all the evidence but as a layperson I just don't get it. Maybe things will be clearer when they are sentenced. I feel so sorry for the family, the details are so awful and will surely haunt them forever. The fact that the girl filmed the attack is truly sickening but seems par for the course these days. Mr Kohli must have been terrified and in so much pain, what a terrible end to his life

Two teenagers found guilty of manslaughter of 80-year-old man in Leicestershire park

Bhim Kohli, who was walking his dog, was racially abused, kicked and punched in ‘gratuitous’ attack

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/08/two-teenagers-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-of-80-year-old-man-in-leicestershire-park?CMP=share_btn_url

OP posts:
Tiswa · 08/04/2025 16:02

QuirkInTheMatrix · 08/04/2025 15:52

Murder does not require intent to kill. There’s someone local to me who has been changed with murder after pushing someone over, one push, and they fell and banged their head and died. There is no argument even from the prosecution that there was any intent to kill. Murder can also be that there was an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (which then led to the death) which in this case is what the CPS decided there was. That if you shove someone over hard enough that he intended to cause GBH.

i am amazed that the case in the OP wasn’t murder.

have they been convicted or are they going murder and assuming manslaughter? Murde requires the intent to kill or cause GBH and I can see in this case how a decent defence can argue that the intent with one push would not be GBH - if it has been convicted as murder it is rare

As I have said before given the ages anyway rehabilitation would always be focused on and a life sentence in that age is rare and even a murder conviction would be 12 years!

Sentencing is always key - manslaughter can give the same tariff as murder

kittensinthekitchen · 08/04/2025 16:02

I also feel for the defence lawyer who obviously did a really good job in persuading the jury to go with the manslaughter conviction rather than murder.

I always think it must be a really difficult position to be in, but of course everyone is entitled to a defence.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 08/04/2025 16:09

Abhorrent.

I haven't followed the detail of this case. Is it possible that evidence was placed before the jury that these kids are of such low intelligence and educational attainment that they didn't grasp that elderly people are frail and get hurt more easily than younger adults? I'd put money on them having neglectful parents too. This is not an attempt to excuse what they did. They clearly have no moral sense at all and are both too dangerous to be at large in the community.

RIP Mr Kohli. His poor family.

INeedAnotherName · 08/04/2025 16:10

The trial heard the boy carried out the racist attack after his girlfriend broke up with him and he needed 'anger releasing'.

Are we supposed to believe that if she hadn't ditched him then he would have stayed a sweet boy and the attack wouldn't have happened? God, the absolute shit that comes out of violent men's mouths and the belief they think everyone is stupid. I hope he rots in jail.

JandamiHash · 08/04/2025 16:13

INeedAnotherName · 08/04/2025 16:10

The trial heard the boy carried out the racist attack after his girlfriend broke up with him and he needed 'anger releasing'.

Are we supposed to believe that if she hadn't ditched him then he would have stayed a sweet boy and the attack wouldn't have happened? God, the absolute shit that comes out of violent men's mouths and the belief they think everyone is stupid. I hope he rots in jail.

If in doubt: blame a woman

Smallmercies · 08/04/2025 16:17

caringcarer · 08/04/2025 15:24

Courts in the UK are always bending over backwards to let offenders off, give them shortest sentences possible and then if they go to jail sentences are reduced to half for so called good behaviour.

Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

KrisAkabusi · 08/04/2025 16:26

Ilikewinter · 08/04/2025 15:57

It wouldn't have taken me 6 hours to find the shits guilty. Wonder which jury members continued to deliberate for that amount of time. Name both of them, and I hope the judge throws the book at the pair of them.

I hope to fuck you are never actually on a jury. You want the judge to punish two people for doing their job? To make sure they gave defendants get a fair trial? Jurors who have spent a long period of time in court listening to harrowing evidence only to have you sneering at them. And why do you want them named? So idiot members of the public like you can personally attack them or ruin their lives? Disgusting.

caringcarer · 08/04/2025 16:28

Smallmercies · 08/04/2025 16:17

Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Except they get out earlier for good behaviour.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 08/04/2025 16:29

KrisAkabusi · 08/04/2025 16:26

I hope to fuck you are never actually on a jury. You want the judge to punish two people for doing their job? To make sure they gave defendants get a fair trial? Jurors who have spent a long period of time in court listening to harrowing evidence only to have you sneering at them. And why do you want them named? So idiot members of the public like you can personally attack them or ruin their lives? Disgusting.

She doesn't mean name the jury members, she means name the two teenage convicts.

KrisAkabusi · 08/04/2025 16:35

Sorry if that's case.The two sentences ran on so I may have misread

Moonshinerso · 08/04/2025 16:40

Such a sickening attack. I really hope that the family get some justice but due to their ages I doubt that the punishment will fit the crime.

saveforthat · 08/04/2025 16:42

asrl78 · 08/04/2025 15:22

It comes down to what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt in court. To convict a defendant of murder requires proof of intent to kill. Without that manslaughter is the only option.

It is not about respect, or lack of, for elders, it is about respect for people and life in general. Elderly people do not automatically deserve more respect than others just because they have existed for longer.

No but it's a characteristic of this type of cowardly scum that they would pick on an 80 year old man rather than say a 30 year old bodybuilder type. It's heartbreaking.

4pmwinetimebebeh · 08/04/2025 16:43

They should be named. They’ve killed that poor man they deserve every moment of the rest of their lives to be ruined. I hope they’re imprisoned long enough to be moved into an adult prison for a good while so they get the full experience they deserve.

Ihateboris · 08/04/2025 16:43

Womanofcustard · 08/04/2025 15:57

Would I be alone in thinking that the age of defendants shouldn’t stop their names being given in cases of extreme violence/murder?

No, you're not alone. The evil pair of monsters need to be named, shamed, hung, drawn and quartered. That poor, poor, defenseless man.

NidaNearby · 08/04/2025 16:46

I presume they won’t name the 13 year old girl, but I hope the judge lifts the anonymity of the 15 year old boy. He’s the same age as Brianna Ghey’s killers - though I suppose they were convicted of murder, not manslaughter.

Ponkyandthebrain · 08/04/2025 16:46

I think juries tend to give the benefit of the doubt, especially to children. They feel the weight of sending someone to prison for many years. I mean you’re hitting an 80 year old man repeatedly, you know you’re going to cause really serious harm. That’s sufficient for murder. You put on a balaclava. There’s also a lot of misunderstanding about murder/manslaughter. The judge will give clear direction but I don’t think people listen. This thread is a good example, people still think it’s intent to murder, it’s not. It’s called ‘malice afterthought’ which is slightly different to intent. The law commission wrote a recommendation years ago about changing the law on manslaughter because there’s a huge gap in sentencing and different degrees of manslaughter. The culpability here is different to negligence manslaughter I would argue but the sentencing is the same. Successive governments have failed to bother doing anything about it

Its also not the judges fault if the sentence is pathetic here. The guidelines have to be adhered to. I suspect the judge probably disagrees with the verdict,

Boomer55 · 08/04/2025 16:47

They should name and shame all of these parents that have managed to rear these feral, savage kids. Awful case. 😒

ExtraOnions · 08/04/2025 16:50

The Jury heard all of the evidence, we have not.

Ihateboris · 08/04/2025 16:53

Boomer55 · 08/04/2025 16:47

They should name and shame all of these parents that have managed to rear these feral, savage kids. Awful case. 😒

I completely agree

SunsetCocktails · 08/04/2025 16:56

Maybe it’s just me, but there definitely seem to be more children who murder being named in recent years. I think they should be. And I hope the girl in this case receives a sentence just as long as the boys. The fact she had a photo of the gentleman on her phone a week before, “just in case”, says everything about what kind of utterly vile person she is.

deeahgwitch · 08/04/2025 16:58

Genevieva · 08/04/2025 15:25

I agree. If they intended to harm then it’s murder, even if they didn’t intend to kill. What they did was sickening.

Absolutely
That poor man and those who loved him.
SadSadAngrySadSad

Liondoesntsleepatnight · 08/04/2025 16:59

As per PP, Murder is pre meditation, Intent to kill. Not just a “worse form of manslaughter”.

Vile vile individuals either way. I hope Prison is tough for them

QuirkInTheMatrix · 08/04/2025 16:59

Tiswa · 08/04/2025 16:02

have they been convicted or are they going murder and assuming manslaughter? Murde requires the intent to kill or cause GBH and I can see in this case how a decent defence can argue that the intent with one push would not be GBH - if it has been convicted as murder it is rare

As I have said before given the ages anyway rehabilitation would always be focused on and a life sentence in that age is rare and even a murder conviction would be 12 years!

Sentencing is always key - manslaughter can give the same tariff as murder

Not been convicted yet, court case imminent.

Jabtastic · 08/04/2025 17:00

Britain is absolutely broken. I am so sad for this man and his family.

I'll await the inevitable 'autism' diagnosis which seems to appear pre-sentencing in lots of these cases of violent young offenders, even though the autistic teens I know in daily life are nothing like this.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 08/04/2025 17:01

QuirkInTheMatrix · 08/04/2025 16:59

Not been convicted yet, court case imminent.

It's in the OP that they've been convicted.