Teenage boy acquitted of murder and manslaughter after killing girl

[StarlightRobot]

Is anyone else baffled by the acquittal of a teenage boy who stabbed and killed nine year old Aria Thorpe. I can vaguely understand the acquittal for murder but how on earth has he been acquitted for manslaughter? He got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her in the cheat while she was eating her dinner for goodness’ sake! Then he left her bleeding to death and hid on a train. It’s another example of the lives of girls just not mattering.

@MaturingCheeseball

The ‘public don’t understand’ approach is echoed by some other posters who disagree with criticism of the outcome because we didn’t sit through the trial and don’t have the transcripts.

If we had a perfect system then I would be able to trust that the right outcome was reached, but there is a wider context where harm to girls and women hasn’t resulted in the right consequences in many cases, boys avoiding prison for raping girls, the grooming gangs, victims of violence not listened to, rapists avoiding convictions (the conviction rates are extremely low), police and authorities not prosecuting and so forth.

There is a wider need to raise the alarm about these outcomes and the message that girls are less important than the feelings of violent boys and men.

There’s also the Occam’s razor. Someone holds knife, other person runs into it. Is that really likely? It’s like those people who turn up in casualty and say they slipped over and - how unfortunate! - an egg timer lying on the floor (substitute any household item) got stuck inside their bum…

Again that seals the case against juries if the Public don’t understand how do the juries understand given that they are in fact the public

He said he did it to scare her in interview.

They're given clear directions and guidance on the law by the judge, including routes to verdict - i.e. what they have to be sure of, and in what order, to find the defendant guilty.

If there's anything they don't understand they're instructed to send a note to the judge requesting clarification.

And that is different in law to threatening someone.

No it isn't:

A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a)while A is in a private place, A unlawfully and intentionally threatens another person (“B”) with an article or substance to which this subsection applies, and
(b)A does so in such a way that there is an immediate risk of serious physical harm to B.

He did threaten her (even if it was just to get a reaction) and he certainly did it in such a way that there was an immediate risk of harm. Both tests are met.

I’m not saying I agree with it. It this was the defence argument, that his intention to scare was playing not an actual threat. And the jury agreed.

Surely if the judge felt that the story of it being playful wasn’t a legal defence he would have directed the jury to find him guilty?

He can’t direct a guilty verdict. He can only direct acquittal, during trial if procedure has not been correctly followed or if no evidence is offered for example. He’s not there to order a verdict, just to govern procedure and make sure the jury is advised on the law.

A defendant can put forward whatever defence they like, although some are only partial defences rather than total. It can be utterly ridiculous and the jury still has to sit there and listen to it until the trial has concluded. Because defendants always have a right to a defence.

Fair enough. I knew someone where the judge directed an acquittal. Didn’t realise it didn’t work the other way. But if the judge is there to advise on points of law would he not say the defence using play as an excuse wasn’t a defence and it was still a threat? The fact he didn’t makes me think that legally it would mean if believed the boy’s behaviour wasn’t a threat?

As I say, I don't think the jury agreed at all. I think they knew damn well he was guilty and their "not gullty" verdict was arrived at by a completely different path.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it. You're (now) saying you agree he was guilty, but because the jury found him not guilty he must have actually been not guilty.

You were 100% quibbling over the legality of threatening with a knife to try and make the case he was not guilty.

Doesn’t mean they’re A not too arrogant to request an explanation and B intelligent enough to interpret it

That would be for the jury to decide. The judge would have told them they needed to be sure the defendant's behaviour was an intentional threat.

The fundraiser was set up by Aria's dad's aunt and she actually calls it a tragic "incident". Katie Thorpe who is Aria's aunt has posted on facebook her disbelief that the boy was not found guilty of manslaughter and asked people to share her post.

I think that is highly likely

I hate this ‘we were playing’. What nine year old girl wants to play with a knife with a 16 year old boy. It reminds me of the ‘she asked to be strangled’ defence.

Maybe I'm not a lawyer but I think that something has gone badly wrong when you were holding the knife that stabbed someone to death with no one else present, and you receive zero punishment for it. You get to have intimate partners, work with children or vulnerable people and no one knows. You just walk away.

A likely story. These little girls that cause their own deaths.

Or what 16 yr old wants to play with a nine year old.
Most 16yr olds wouldn't give nine yr olds the time of day.
Strange in so many ways.

Well there isnt any consistency in society, and certainly not on this forum about what we think about young people of any age

Lots of very very very strong arguments are made for giving 16 year olds the vote. Yet at the same time, 16 year olds apparently cant manage to do a Saturday job or hold any responsibility because they're so stressed by school and exams and need a 'life' so you cant ask too much of them
And at the same time, many posters wouldnt dream of leaving a 16 year old overnight on their own, or going away on holiday with their mates, its unthinkable
And then the absolute nonsense excuses for anyone under 25 barely being able to tie their own shoe laces because 'brain not fully developed' when what they're actually talkinga bout is a helpful evolutionary stage of brain elasticity when younger people can learn faster and take more risks to aid society

So according to many posters on this site, this 16 year old would barely be out of nappies let alone held responsible for anything.

We’ve got dickheads in our family who would say one thing. When the absolute opposite is true.
Every family’s got them and you increase your chances of getting more of them with a blended family