Paula Leeson trial collapses

[CroydianSlip]

I was appalled reading about this case and shocked to see the case collapse -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-56444145

It raised some interesting points for me though, if something occurs in private then surely there's a real risk of evidence being circumstantial rather than a concrete witness statement for eg. And the judge's assertion that it was more likely murder was upsetting given it's not being pursued.

"Stopping the trial, Mr Justice Goose said there were two available possibilities.

'' Firstly, Mr McPherson restrained his wife under water or overcame her in a struggle or pushed her to cause her to drown, he said. Or secondly, Ms Leeson drowned by an accident, by a trip, fall or a faint, causing her to fall into the water, he added. "Whilst the first of those alternatives is clearly more likely,..." "

Her poor family being left with this outcome too.

So basically his word against hers - hers being the bruises and the 7 insurance policies.

I read some of the older articles a while back and the circumstantial evidence is pretty damning but clearly not deemed enough.

His word against hers... And she's dead.

Beggars belief. Clearly womens lives do not matter.

The article finishes by saying the judge doesn't think an appeal would be feasible so is that it?

Does he get the insurance money now?

It's the prosecutor who indicates an appeal wouldn't be feasible (presumably speaking on behalf of the CPS).

Prosecutor David McLachlan QC told the court there were no reasonable grounds for an appeal against the decision.

I've no idea what standards of evidence are necessary for insurance payments in such cases.

Can any legal eagles help explain this? To a layman, it seems like the evidence is abundant, even if it is circumstantial. It seems outrageous to me, but perhaps predictable to those in the know?

Yes, would love to understand it and whether there's any chance the truth can ever be sought in a more robust way.

At least with lenient sentencing there is a process

We don’t know the ins and outs of the evidence offered in the trial, circumstantial evidence is still evidence though. I wonder if there was any witnesses to any relationship issues pre Denmark?

The 7 life insurance policies is a strong motive. There is no reason for that, that I can think of.

I wonder if he can still be prosecuted for the forgeries?

The other articles relating to this just pile on the suspicion and the inaccuracies in his statements (saying he'd found her deadupon waking when there were photos of them out during that day) just beggar belief.

How is it OK for one person to decide the evidence isn't good enough, rather than that evidence being put to a jury and then deciding?

If I die in these sort of circumstances I want you all to keep pushing for someone to discover the truth, OK?!

Can the family bring a civil case of some sort?
What a terrible travesty of justice. Poor Paula

He also had a wife and child previously who died in a fire. It’s unbelievable!

Wtaf???

Oh fucking hell.

Oh, it's didn't quote @Wellshellsbells

No way Wellshellsbells! That is just so so sad. Was that inadmissible circumstantial evidence too?

I know relatives of Paula .I’m not sure why it wasn’t mentioned/allowed in court.the poor family.

This is a problem with VAWG in general.

With ', date rape' it's all oh well his word against hers (even if there's evidence).

When a woman is dead it's only his word. There have been complaints about the press reporting of the defence - she had an affair, she did this that etc. When of course she can't say anything.. Very noticeable recently with women who have died and the men have said oh it was a sex thing and she liked it...

'He also had a wife and child previously who died in a fire.'

Ah. Erm. He's been very unlucky.

@AdaFuckingShelby

Beggars belief. Clearly womens lives do not matter.

With all due respect, this is nonsense. Her life mattered enough for the police to mount an investigation, gather evidence, the CPS to review the evidence, accepting it was sufficient evidence to form a case, and for all the work to be put in to being that case to court.

The judge has duties to ensure that the evidence is sufficient to present to a jury.

He has decided that in this case, despite there being lots of circumstantial evidence that make it more likely than not that Paula’s death wasn’t accidental, it’s not sufficient for a conviction. ‘More likely than not’ isn’t the burden of proof required.

I don’t know nearly enough about the legal system to know why the judge felt it necessary to intervene at this point, why the judges opinion is different to the CPS or any other number of legal questions about the case.

No doubt there are countless examples where violence against women is not taken seriously or doesn’t receive the attention it deserves. But I can’t see this case as an example of that.

Is there a link about the previous wife and child?

7 insurance policies! I mean that's really dodgy.

On the one hand agree that if there wasn't enough evidence then there wasn't.

On the other hand, judges are not infallible.

My jaw dropped though about his previous wife and child.

I should add that this is clearly absolutely horrific for her family and friends to go through years of this process only for it to end in this way.

All those injuries and seven insurance policies ? Her poor family.

Imagine it being deemed 'more than likely' that you're a murderer and that you forged financial documents so that you alone gained (rather than the son she apparently doted on) ... And getting away with it. Possibly getting the proceeds of the insurance too.

I really hope there is some way of Paula's family having some sense of justice or closure.

Seven insurance policies has dodgy and fraud written all over it.

I don't know if he had an explanation.

I don’t know nearly enough about the legal system to know why the judge felt it necessary to intervene at this point, why the judges opinion is different to the CPS or any other number of legal questions about the case.

I wonder if Secret Barrister will comment with a helpful thread on Twitter (not yet, but I've seen several people ask).