Words Fail Me.....

[Gettingagrip]

Man kills wife over roast beef dinner

It's impossible to have a grown-up conversation with dittany around.

SomeGuy: "all agreed? good stuff. now, anyone got a good recipe for lemon drizzle cake?" Surely you must see that this line was extremely patronising? You might as well have said "Go back to the kitchen, dear."

When ElephantsAndMiasmas said she'd never heard the line, I imagine she meant "never heard it as a pay-off line at the end of a comment".

FWIW, I accept the point that there have been cases where a male-on-male single-blow assault has resulted in a similar sentence. (Similar, but not identical - two and a half years being the norm in the male-on-male cases, as SomeGuy pointed out.) So the sentencing is shit. Thank you to ThreeLittlePebbles who pointed out the disparity between this and the 8 years given to the person who handled stolen goods. IMO this country does tend to punish crimes against property more severely than crimes against a person.

Agree with others who have said that someone who strikes another person (especially someone they claim to love) so that they fall down dead, and then just disappears for 20 minutes rather than immediately calling an ambulance - well, doesn't that look, erm, odd?

But mainly it is the judge's comments that make one gasp. A tiff, ffs! Well, DP and I sometimes have tiffs. Neither of us has ever struck the other as a result, though.

Oops, xpost with Elephants.

And I agree there is certainly a class dimension to the sentencing.

I've never heard 'MRA' as a put-down before either....

My view:

• the sentencing range for manslaughter (and probably assault + GBH) cases is clearly too low
• judges are inclined to treat 'respectable' criminals more leniently.

The latter isn't really a surprise - everyone knows that if you're up in court you go in your Sunday best, not a tracksuit. Those accused of killing Stephen Lawrence certainly knew this.

I can't really see this changing when the government, led by 'Red' Ken Clarke, is trying to reduce prison numbers.

Good, now off you go and scratch your bollocks and change the oil in something.

no thanks, got to go cook the dinner.

Nicely done, Elephants. A little maturity to the conversation.

Yeah it's so different than what Someguy did earlier.

I don't get it either dittany

(thanks btw Verm, I try :))

I don't understand why any of the things he mentioned are mitigating factors:

• outside or inside, who cares? I don't think he deserves credit for doing his killing quietly and without fussing the public

• no previous evidence of domestic violence, well whoop ee doo, what does that matter now he's been violent enough to kill her?

-good career, again who gives a toss. Must be a real comfort to know your sister/daughter/friend/mother has been killed by someone whose CV is first rate

• "successful", code for rich I assume. Really what does this matter.

All that stuff is irrelevant. If he had been playing blind man's buff and accidentally hit her, or tripped over her in the night maybe evidence that he was generally a nice man might have some bearing. Not in this case.

It's a license to kill your spouse.

I read the article like this

The judge calls his behaviour 'unattractive'. He killed his wife! OK, he probably didn't mean to. But he meant to hit her, and he probably did it pretty hard in order to rupture an artery in her neck, even taking into account the fact that some people have weaknesses in arteries.

The judge's decision on sentencing seems to have been entirely based on this man's social class and professional life. 'Yup, you hit your wife so hard she died, but you're a decent chap by and large.'

It is terrifying.

I just can't imagine someone letting off e.g. a child killer with a sentence like this, "well you did hit little Bobby so hard he fractured his skull, but you're rich and a dab hand at financial services, and you didn't do it in the street so ho hum."

Unattractive, yes quaere, presumably the judge imagines this won't look good on his match.com profile.

Not sure what to say about the sentence, 'lucky punch kill'crimes tend to get this kind of sentence whether the victim is male or female. But it is the judges comments i find despicable, someone died it is not a 'tiff'

And while we're at it, "lucky punch" FFS

lucky punch is not a term used by the judge or legal profession, it is 'one blow manslaughter'.

Here's some background on sentencing

"The appellant and Mark Skelton, the man who was to die, were good friends. The appellant was aged 26, and Skelton 28. The appellant lived with a woman called Louise Tchaikovsky and three children. The two younger children were their own and the eldest was a child by another man.

The appellant and Skelton were working together on rebuilding the appellant's patio. In the late afternoon they had a couple of cans of lager and then early in the evening they went out together for a night in Rotherham town centre. In the course of the evening they each consumed in the region of eight to ten pints of lager, possibly more. Skelton became a little the worse for wear and the appellant took him back to his home, arriving there shortly before midnight. They then relieved a relative of Louise Tchaikovsky who was baby-sitting. The baby-sitter was needed because Louise had also gone out for a night on the town with her younger sister Leanne, who was aged 17, and some of their mutual friends. They, too, consumed a fair amount of alcohol.

Louise returned home at about 2.30am. She found the appellant and the deceased soundly asleep each on his own sofa. She tried to wake the appellant, but did not succeed. She managed to wake up Skelton, who suddenly kissed her on the lips. She was upset and said, "What have you done that for?" and pushed him away. She left home in some distress, telephoned her sister Leanne to tell her what had happened, and made her way to Leanne's house. Leanne stormed round to the appellant's home to find Skelton and the appellant asleep. Not without some difficulty, she succeeded in waking up Skelton. She launched a frenzied attack on him, punching and slapping him in the face. The appellant then woke up. Leanne gave him some kind of account of what she understood had passed between Skelton and Louise. The appellant got up and went into the kitchen. Skelton followed him. At this time it seems that he did not accept that he had done anything inappropriate. This caused Leanne, who followed them into the kitchen, to telephone her sister on the mobile phone. Whether either of the men spoke to Louise on the telephone is not clear, but it seems that at this point Skelton said that he was sorry. The appellant then grabbed hold of Skelton's shirt with his right hand and hit him once on the right cheek, using his left hand. Skelton collapsed to ground. This single blow had caused a traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage, that is the bursting of a blood vessel in the brain, which had killed Skelton.

An ambulance was called. Whilst they were awaiting for it attempts were made to resuscitate Skelton, in which the appellant assisted with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation"

The judge said:

"Cases such as this can present a difficult sentencing exercise. In mitigation are your character, your early plea, your remorse and the fact that the violence was limited to the one punch. Against that is the background of excessive drinking, without which this incident would probably never have happened at all. At the time you struck your victim he was doing nothing at all to you, and there was no possible justification for the use of any violence; and, of course, the fact that death resulted shows why courts must always take a serious view of any unlawful violence because unintended results are always possible. "

"There has been a recognition in recent years that too little attention was sometimes paid in the past to the fact of loss of human life, and in my judgment that must be right. Causing the death of another human being by unlawful violence must result in a sentence of some length"

And he was sentenced to three years.

The Court of Appeal however ruled that this was excessive, saying

"There were mitigating factors. The appellant struck a single blow of moderate force. He showed responsibility after Skelton fell to the ground in assisting in attempts to resuscitate him. There is no doubt of his remorse. He had killed a close friend. He has the benefit of a guilty plea made at the earliest opportunity.

We turn back to Coleman. We can see no reason on the facts of this case to go beyond the recommended starting point of twelve months. Accordingly, we quash the sentence imposed and substitute a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment."

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/3147.html

That would be comparable, wouldn't it, if:

• there were witnesses in the OP case, as there were in this one, testifying to the facts of the incident

• the man in the OP case had attempted to resuscitate his wife or called for help immediately, rather than sodding off who knows where and leaving her dying

• there was evidence of such obvious good feeling between the couple in the OP case as there was here. The mere fact of them being married is not evidence of this, especially as the last available witnesses witnessed him being angry with her.

So most of the "mitigating factors" that applied in that case, do not apply in this case, and in some cases the opposite was true. If trying to resuscitate someone counts in your favour, what does vanishing and leaving them to die count as?

well no that's true, but what they are saying is that 12 months is the starting point, so he has been given a longer sentence for whatever reason.

The sentencing guidelines are given:

"It seems to us, having done our best to reconcile these various decisions manslaughter is in an area where reconciliation of decisions is by no means easy that the starting point for this type of offence strictly confined, as we have endeavoured to confine it, is one of 12 months' imprisonment on a plea of guilty.

Having started from that point, one turns then to consider the mitigating features on one hand and the potentially aggravating features on the other. The fact that there was no premeditation is one of the mitigating features. The fact that it is a single blow of moderate force, again is another mitigating feature. The fact that there has been remorse, the fact that there has been an immediate admission of guilt at the first opportunity are all features which tell in favour of the appellant.

On the other hand indications that the appellant is susceptible to outbreaks of violence, the fact that the assault was gratuitous and unprovoked, the fact that there was more than one blow struck, are all features which will tend to aggravate the offence."

"The Chief Justice went on to look at the facts of the particular case and to conclude that there were mitigating features which evenly balanced the aggravating features. In those circumstances the sentence of two years that had been imposed was quashed and substituted by a sentence of twelve months. "

So you can end up with a sentence of less than 12 months if there are mitigating features outweighing the aggravating features.

There are various cases cited:

R v Henry: "The appellant had seen his wife kissing a man and had struck him one blow. He had fallen and struck his head. It was a considerable blow which had fractured the deceased's jaw. The appellant was a man of good character. Drink was not involved. In allowing the appeal and following Coleman, the court quashed a four year sentence and substituted a sentence of 18 months. Simon Brown LJ remarked that, but for the ferocity of the blow, the sentence would have been less. "

R v Edwards " In that case there had been no plea of guilty; there was a degree of provocation; there was a single punch not of great force, which caused the victim to fall and strike his head with fatal consequences. The court referred to Coleman, Bryant and Henry, quashed the sentence of thirty months that had been imposed, and substituted a sentence of eighteen months"

"R v Cheetham and Baker [2004] 2 Cr App R(S) 278, the appellant Cheetham had pleaded guilty. He had been in drink. He had followed the victim and administered a single punch without any reason. The court followed Coleman which they described as their guide. The court also cited R v Edwards and R v Kearney [2001] 1 Cr App R(S) 126, and reduced the sentence of four years' imprisonment that had been imposed to one of two years. "

"R v Binstead [2005] EWCA Crim 164, presided over by Gage LJ, again there had been a plea of guilty. Drink had played its part; the appellant was moderately drunk and the deceased was very drunk. The deceased called out the appellant for a fight. There was one punch which was stuck hard. The appellant was a man of bad character. He had a previous conviction for attempted rape. Following Coleman and Edwards, the court reduced the sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment to one of eighteen months. "

So clearly there is a considerable body of case law for the judge to refer to in making his sentencing decision.

Goo ga burble burble

Sorry, I find it hard to have an adult conversation with you around Dittany

By the way, have you named your child after yourself with small modifications?

ha ha what a surprise, discussion of sentencing precedent is ignored, facts are much too inconvenient to get in the way of further insults and accusations of sexism.

Obviously I should have stayed away the first time you pulled this stunt. Oh well, won't make that mistake again.

Are you talking to me SG?

You do know it's not actually my job nor my destiny to reply to you on MN or address your every post?

What you posted is very interesting, I will have to have a proper read and follow up the stories at some point. What I notice (and perhaps I've missed something here) is that for every case you cite as being given 1-2 years in the end, the original judge handed down a much longer sentence. These are all appeal decisions. Why is that?

Presumably this indicates that lots of cases of this kind result in a sentence of 4-5 years, and some of these appeal, and some of those get their sentences reduced.

In any case, it's clear from the judge's words that he didn't really consider any aggravating factors, he thought the man was just a sweetie who was unlucky.

Out of interest, the pattern dittany pointed out is quite peculiar. Do you honestly think sexism doesn't exist?

I'm upset about the judges comments TBH, more than anything else. I don't see what linking reams of detail about other cases does to help TBH.

This bloke killed his wife, the judge said "tough luck old son" and described it as a "tiff", women on here are upset about that. What's the argument?

When someone says "I feel upset about this, it seems wrong", why the need to start cutting and pasting inches of stuff about other cases? To try and tell people that how they feel is wrong? People are expected to say "gosh yes you're right, it was just a tiff, what a silly women I've been thinking the judge was out of order"...

GOL dittany