Court of Appeal urged to overturn convictions of three men who killed their wives

[KRITIQ]

The cases of 3 men convicted of murdering their partners are being heard together, in light of legislation that came into effect in England and Wales in 2009. They are claiming they should have been convicted only of manslaughter, which carries a much shorter sentence. Story here.

Jackie Evans was stabbed to death by her husband Dewi in an argument over a "cup of tea." Evans told police he had loved his wife and became obsessed with her. He often accused her of having affairs with other men even though he knew "it was all in my mind". He admitted manslaughter due to a "temporary loss of control."

Steven Parker repeatedly stabbed his wife Jane Parker by "hacking at her", especially in the neck area, in a jealous rage after she told him she wanted to leave him. He admitted manslaughter due to a "temporary loss of control."

Dawn Clinton was killed by her estranged husband Jon. On the day she was murdered, she was supposed to be returning to her parent's home address, where she had been staying for the past two weeks since leaving her husband to "escape an abusive and controlling relationship" as described by her mother. However, she did not return and police were contacted. Jon Clinton admitted manslaughter due to a "temporary loss of control."

If these appeals succeed, AIBU to be worried about the precedent this could set?

When are we going to get over the fact that, however you write law, it will throw up cases that challenge our perceptions of right and wrong?

agreed SGM.

I don't understand how men killing women could possibly ever change my perceptions of... anything really. They do it all the time... kill their wives I mean. What we're discussing here is whether they should be punished adequately, or whether women's lives aren't worth enough to bother with fussiness such as punishment.

Does anyone know more about the Kiranjit Ahluwalia case?

I saw the film Provoked based upon the case a few years ago. I think the legal definition of 'provocation' was changed by the case so that it included longer term domestic abuse rather than only an instant reaction to an incident of violence - hope I've remembered that correctly.

This more recent change from 'provocation' to 'loss of control' strikes me as a form of backlash against women victims of DV. I admit that I don't know much more about this than what I've posted here though.

Only hope that Clinton is indeed found guilty once more and if possible can be made to serve even longer.

The loss of control defence is still available to women who kill abusive partners, the Ahluwalia, Humphries and Thornton cases all established that a women who experiences sustained dv can have a slow burn loos of control rather than an instant loss of control.

Thank you emskaboo.

So, am I right in thinking that this change in the law was brought about because of the many cases where women and men tried for killing spouses/partners were treated very differently by the courts?

And the first time cases have been re-looked at involved three horrific cases of women murdered by their husbands.

Sorry for stating the obvious and probably repeating what others have said so much better. Only recently coming to terms with DV that happened to me 20+ years ago and so angry I can't think straight.

Surely torching the landrover the day before the murder, knowing that she would need to go to the house to get insurance documents, is premeditation?

Here was me naively believing that the entire point of the court system was to adminster justice or indeed punish crimimal wrongdoing within the legal framework of this country so we have the ability to exist in a civilised society

Shall we just have 'mob law' instead, never mind that 'mob law' gets it wrong in most cases but there's no smoke without fire eh

Just the post from Sakura....it reads a tad hysterical

that's because a lot of judges are paedos themselves (quote), all men are insane, come on SGM do you really think this line of reasoning stands up well. Personally I dont like seeing a post with such populist trite statements that could come out of a Sun newspaper being put forward in an otherwise passioned debate.

Oh SWM, it's not even worth my time to debate this further, a personal reflection is one that's couched in a least a sembelance of understanding about the legal system not the mush they're spouting

But judges have excused child rapes by saying "she was a precocious 8 yr old" or told the rapist to by the child a bike to make up for it.
Hard not to draw negative conclusions about the judges based on their statements.

Please do not condemn the entire judiciary on the basis of a couple of people, no matter how crass they may be.

From the Beeb story: 'In order to raise the loss of control defence, there has to be a "qualifying trigger" and, in spite of the Act stating sexual infidelity is to be disregarded, the Appeal Court has now ruled it can be taken into account.'

So the judges are merrily disregarding what the law actually says, and imposing their own belief that it's OK not murder if the woman dared to have sex with someone else? FGS. I thought the judiciary was supposed to interpret Acts of Parliament, not make up their own version.

In a horrible sort of way these cases do mark a step forward. Twenty years ago when Itheses tidying law these men would have pleaded provocation - the point being that "any reasonable man" would have snapped in the same way. This behaviour was explicitly framed as being less culpable because any man might do it.

Now these bastards are claiming that their actions are less culpable because they were too sick to know right from wrong - framing them explicitly as appalling acts that no reasonable man would ever perpetrate that can only be explained by evil and/or insanity - and in at least 2 of the 3 cases the jury has seen through their feeble claims of DR (I'd be staggered if the third jury didn't do the same, bear in mind that the point was the judge found it so implausible that it shouldn't even be put to the jury).

That has to be progress, for the judicial system, though not, tragically, for the women in question and their families - still a long way to go.

Itheses tidying = I was studying

Interesting point, dilys.

I do hate the way defence solicitors will always make up some rubbish they claim the victim did to provoke the murderer. The victim's dead, so can't contradict the claims about 'she taunted him' or whatever. I know it's the defence's job to get their client off, but blackening the name of a murder victim and inventing a pile of crap to blame them for their fate really is loathesome.

I'm accused of being "hysterical" ! LOL, on the feminist topic.

Hysteria? You mean, as in stemming from my womb, bakingaddict? As in hysterical womb? As in one of the most misogynistic anti-woman insults ever invented?

I expected a bit more from someone posting on the feminist topic

Here ya go. from just a quick google. There are loads of these stories out there. The only way you could not know about paedophile judges is if you were in some sort of denial...

Judge blames a 10 year old rape victim for being raped by a 24 year old man[

[The 10-year-old girl] was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by [Keith Fenn, 24] and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year. Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her. Yet [Judge Julian Hall] said the case was exceptional because the "young woman" had been wearing a frilly bra and thong.

?The court heard that the girl regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans. "It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said. "Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16."

Returning to the topic of the thread the Court gave its interpretation of sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009) ;-

Section 54 (1) contains three statutory components to the 'loss of control' defence:
(1) Where a person (?D?) kills or is party to the killing of another (?V?), D is not to be convicted of murder if ?

(a) D?s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D?s loss of self-control,

(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and (c) a person of D?s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.

The Court examines each of these in turn:

(a) Loss of self- control (para 10)
(b) Qualifying trigger (paras 11 - 29)
(c) Would a similar person in the same circumstances have reacted the same way? (paras 34 - 32)

Section 55 of the CJA 2009 sets out the qualifying triggers for the defence and explicitly states that sexual infidelity must be disregarded.

The first problem is that in it's wisdom the legislature (Parliament) has failed to define 'sexual infidelity.' The Court considered the full extent of the prohibition against 'sexual infidelity' as a qualifying trigger for the purposes of the loss of control defence.

"We have examined the legislative structure as a whole. The legislation was designed to prohibit the misuse of sexual infidelity as a potential trigger for loss of control in circumstances in which it was thought to have been misused in the former defence of provocation. Where there is no other potential trigger, the prohibition must, notwithstanding the difficulties identified earlier in the judgment, be applied."

".... In section 54(1)(c) and (3) the legislation further acknowledges the impact of sexual infidelity as a potential ingredient of the third component of the defence, when all the defendant?s circumstances fall for consideration, and when, although express provision is made for the exclusion of some features of the defendant?s situation, the fact that he/she has been sexually betrayed is not. In short, sexual infidelity is not subject to a blanket exclusion when the loss of control defence is under consideration. Evidence of these matters may be deployed by the defendant and therefore the legislation proceeds on the basis that sexual infidelity is a permissible feature of the loss of control defence."

The reason why appeal was granted was because the judge in one of the cases had misdirected themselves as to the relevance of sexual infidelity as a potential trigger for the loss of control.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/2.html

If a person's "temporary loss of control" leads them to kill another human being shouldnt they be sectioned under the mental health act fgs?Surely any murder could be described as such,after all one doesnt murder in a calm rational manner surely.

I work in cp and a case a few yrs ago involved a 12 yr old who was pg from a much older man.I was dismayed at how often during the process i had to remind other proffessionals that it didnt really matter how she acted/what her past behaviour was like/how she looked,because SHE WAS 12!!! And the man knew it.Nothing else mattered as far as i was concerned. Makes me so angry this "poor men cant help themselves when provoked or titilated" utter nonsense.