Claire Parry’s killer found NOT GUILTY of Murder.

[GroundAlmonds]

Unbelievable.

www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/18825133.dorset-policeman-timothy-brehmer-found-not-guilty-murder/

I agree, Cara. The meaning of 'reasonable' really does need to be emphasised if juries are to stay as they are. I would prefer an overhaul. I sat on a jury where one woman said that she knew the accused was a 'wrong'un the minute she clapped eyes on him' and none of what was said during the trial would have swayed her mind otherwise. I truly believe that prejudice whether in favour of or not in favour of the accused plays a major role.
On the other end of the spectrum I've known someone who said they couldn't face the guilt of being the end to send someone down so this influenced their decision to go for 'not guilty'. A flawed system all round.

Being the one*

I also think there's a problem in the law as it stands in that the threshold to prove murder rather than manslaughter is quite high.

Can any lawyers on this thread comment on how the law treat cases where murder wasn't the intention, but it would be reasonable to assume that the consequence of an action would be death? Is this where the loss of control defence comes in? Somebody can be in a state of mind where they are relieved of the obligation to make reasonable assumptions?

If murder isn’t the intention but the likely or natural consequence is death then you can infer intent (it’s called Woolin intention.) The standard example is if you set off a bomb on a plane to crash it for insurance purposes but had no intention directly to harm anyone. In this case the court would say death of the crew was an obvious consequence of the bombing so would infer intention to kill. It’s also murder if you intend to inflict really serous harm and they end up dying.

Loss of control is a partial defence that can lower a murder charge to manslaughter. It’s supposed to be a tough threshold to pass. You have to be triggered by something serious, and the jury has to be convinced that the loss of control was justifiable - like a normal person of the same sex and age would also lose control in a similar circumstance. So you can try to plead loss of control in any murder trial.

Ten years. Fucking hell we really are disposable aren't we? Ten years.

If there's one type of person who knows how to remove someone of any size and weight from a car (let alone a slim woman) it's a police officer, especially a traffic one.

My god. It feels like we are going backwards every day.

Thanks WeeBisom

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321425591531425792?s=19

"Loss of control" manslaughter, rather than "he didn't mean it" manslaughter.

twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1321425591531425792?s=19

How depressing.

Re self control the test is if

a person of the defendant’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might in the circumstances have reacted in the same or a similar way.

At first glance, it doesn't seem reasonable to include sex as a comparator here - surely that lowers the bar for men?

Have I missed something?

Is there a situation where this law would help women?

Shouldn't everyone show the same degree of tolerance and restraint regardless of sex?

Does 10 years mean that he will be out in five?

I think the “reasonable doubt” is a difficult one. I know that I would be rubbish on a jury - I’m a mathematician - a proof is a proof and without a (mathematical so flawless) proof I am not sure of anything.

I don’t like the way the newspapers are saying “the jury believed him” when the real truth is probably “the jury thought he was almost certainly a lying murderer but they did have a tiny bit of doubt so had to acquit him”.

In Scotland do they still have the “not proven” verdict? On the whole I don’t like it because it makes a mockery of “innocent until proven guilty” but I suddenly feel like maybe we needed it here.

Secret Barrister is now suggesting (Thanks for link Nellle) that it wasn't that the jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict for murder, but that they judged there was enough evidence for 'loss of control' to reduce the murder change to manslaughter.

"Does 10 years mean that he will be out in five"

Mr Justice Jacobs said Brehmer would serve two-thirds of his sentence in prison before he could apply for parole

The sex comparator in the defence is odd. I think the aim was to help women, because at one point there was a crazy disparity where the vast majority of people succeeding on the defence were men and women hardly succeeded at all. It maybe recognises that women lose control for different reasons?

I'm not sure 'loss of control' is supposed to cover men who have had their affairs and misogyny exposed.

Absolutely agree @Pertella. That's why this is a gendered crime and a bullshit law.

No woman's "loss of control" will result in "oops, I killed someone". This man's "loss of control" means he's literally got away with murder.

From Secret Barrister
Certain things are automatically excluded - infidelity, for instance, does not count as a qualifying trigger.

But in this case, it seems that the trigger was not infidelity, but the fact that the victim had told Brehmer’s wife about it. Subtle but important distinction.

This is apalling. If you are committing adultery you must know and have factored in the likelihood of being found out.
So if his wife had found out and killed him she wouldn't have been able to run this defence.

If there's one type of person who knows how to remove someone of any size and weight from a car (let alone a slim woman) it's a police officer, especially a traffic one.

If only the prosecuting counsel had thought of that and had put it to the jury!

@zanahoria

"Does 10 years mean that he will be out in five"

Mr Justice Jacobs said Brehmer would serve two-thirds of his sentence in prison before he could apply for parole

I can't imagine how awful the families involved must feel about this. Andrew Parry's description of telling their children that their Mum had died is heartbreaking. Claire Parry's children won't even have reached adulthood and her killer will be walking the streets again and no doubt lining up new women.Sickening.

How else can one interpret the jury's finding of enough evidence to justify a loss of control and thus lowering from murder to manslaughter other than women should expect death as a consequence to defying a man?
Woman threatens to expose affair= oh well clearly that would provoke him= whoops, she died as a result of it. I would go further with what I really think it indicates but it would be in bad taste. Let's just say it stinks.

I think to make accusations of misogyny we'd need to make comparisons with men killing men without necessarily having murderous intent. Do courts press for the higher and harder to prove murder charge, or the lower and easier to prove manslaughter charge?

I think to make accusations of misogyny we'd need to make comparisons with men killing men without necessarily having murderous intent.

This case seems to be more about loss of control and the circumstances in which you wouldn't be expected to exercise a normal level of judgement and self-control.

"Does 10 years mean that he will be out in five"

Mr Justice Jacobs said Brehmer would serve two-thirds of his sentence in prison before he could apply for parole

This case is simply horrific. I read that he’d be considered for parole after two years.

Loss of control my arse. That's called a violent temper most places.

Just awful, I'm too upset to talk about it and raging inside. He sounds like The Dominator. He only 'lost control' because he got found out. He lost control of a woman in his life and she paid for it. Scumbag abuser.

He said Brehmer only just met the “qualifying trigger” for a loss of control defence in that he had a “justifiable sense of being wronged” because he should have been the one to tell his wife about the affair.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/28/dorset-police-officer-timothy-brehmer-jailed-for-10-years-claire-parry-manslaughter

I don't understand this reasoning at all. Apparently they had been having an affair for 10 years - he had plenty of time to tell his wife about the affair. How was he wronged? Again I feel as though I must be missing something.