Chip shop death: Geoffrey Bran cleared of murdering wife

[RoyalCorgi]

This is quite unbelievable.

'Mrs Bran called a friend, Caroline Morgan, telling her: "Geoff has thrown boiling oil over me, help me, help me, get here now. I am burnt to hell."'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50474374

Isn't failure to call an ambulance itself a crime?

Not in the UK. It would be in some other countries, e.g. France.

It is hard to comment on these cases on MN without being accused of siding with the defendant, or failing to take violence against women seriously. But you are asking a jury to imprison someone for life when the medical evidence was that the injury could have been accidentally self-inflicted.

Everyone suggesting that the burden of evidence should be shifted needs to ask themselves how they would feel if it was them or their loved one in the dock, facing life imprisonment.

There are definitely problems with how the legal system treats violence against women, especially the rough sex defence. But, from what has been reported, I can't see that this case is an example of violence not being taken seriously. The prosecution was unable to prove that the defendant committed any act of violence, so it it not surprising that he was acquitted.

XXcstatic

Yes, this. There are places where the rule is that you are guilty unless you can prove innocence, and I really don't like what I see of the justice system in those cases. It tends to give a lot of power to the police who decide who to investigate, and those who decide who to charge, for a crime.

Alcohol can be such a scourge, there are a lot of cases where it is impossible to gain convictions because the victim or the witnesses were drunk, not to mention it often contributes to the crimes directly.

Everyone suggesting that the burden of evidence should be shifted needs to ask themselves how they would feel if it was them or their loved one in the dock, facing life imprisonment

It was just me.

If it was me in the dock i have no doubt Id want innocent until proven guilty!!! Doesnt mean it is the right thing for justice or if we want to "improve" conviction rates. Im not sure its the answer but i do think its part of the discussion, especially the not proven option.

Doesnt mean it is the right thing for justice or if we want to "improve" conviction rates

It's piss-easy to improve conviction rates. Just ask Saudi Arabia or Japan, where most suspects confess. High confession rates occur where police have no effective limitations on how they interrogate suspects, and where suspects have no right to a lawyer during interrogation. It used to happen (less extensively) in this country too, and many cases then collapsed or led to convictions that were later over-turned. Is that justice?

The Bran case turned on whether a crime had actually been committed, but many homicide cases turn on the identity of the killer - is the person in the dock the person who committed the crime? Every time you convict someone who is innocent, you are not just destroying their lives and their families' lives, you are also letting the real perpetrator get away.

I've wondered about the extent to which increased ability to gather technical information about rimes has affected conviction rates. People tend to think that this makes it easier to find out who did something, or to prove it. How often though does it just create more possible interpretations of what happened? Even without factory in deliberate attempts to obscure with experts, I think it's quite common for situations to have data subject to alternate scenarios, and when that happens, maybe the fact that they are "scientific" lends them a lot of weight with juries?

I know some people think certain kinds of information shouldn't be allowed to be included as it will be prejudicial, but then it's also always possible that in some cases it could be really relevant and make the difference between convicting the right person or the wrong one.

you are asking a jury to imprison someone for life when the medical evidence was that the injury could have been accidentally self-inflicted.
Not really, "Geoff has thrown boiling oil over me, help me, help me, get here now. I am burnt to hell" from a person known to be a DV victim doesn't really seem open to misinterpretation.

Basically if you know someone is covered in boiling chip fat you call an ambulance and get them to hospital,. not clean the floor and throw away the clothes they abandoned as they fled.
Its just not good health and safety at work after an accidental spill of boiling chip fat over a person, is it.

Geoff has thrown boiling oil over me, help me, help me, get here now. I am burnt to hell

This tells you nothing about intent. The jury accepted he hadn't thrown the oil but, even if he had, he might not have been aiming at her. It might have been an accident.

The statement isn't necessarily true: she might have been mistaken about what happened (she was apparently intoxicated) or intentionally lying. It sadly cannot be subject to cross-examination, as Mrs Bran died.

Would you be happy to be sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of a single uncorroborated sentence from an intoxicated woman that was ambiguous as to intent? Flip this round - if it had been a woman who killed in a self-defence situation and her assailant's dying words were "I didn't threaten her- she attacked me unprovoked", would you want her sent down for life, just on his word? Because, if you make it easier to convict, it will apply to everyone, not just unsympathetic defendants like Bran.

I was ready to be outraged and horrified. Actually it is less clear cut than other cases I've read.

What about the customers that he stayed to serve, did they not see anything?

I knew a chippy who would reach into the fat to get the fish out- his hands were scarred and he no longer felt it. I can imagine working around hot oil, she's burnt but moving, able to get back to the house where the phone was, presumably. He stays and clears up the dangerous oil spill, second nature in that environment.

Obviously he was wrong. He may well have murdered her. I can see why a jury felt there was reasonable doubt, though.