Teenager guilty of murder.

[placemats]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/23/teenager-guilty-baby-herefordshire-hide-pregnancy-paris-mayo

Apart from the fact that she was raped, if consent to sex is to be a legal term, I find the prosecutions allegations appalling.

'But the prosecution alleged Mayo must have known she was pregnant but chose to deliberately conceal it because she was always planning to kill the baby.'

Perhaps Mayo didn't get early abortion help she needed. I know of one woman, who had 3 previous children, who didn't realise she was pregnant, thought it was early menopause until 4 weeks before her due date. However to allege she was always planning to kill the baby is a step too far. It intimates that those in authority know this child's mind.

First, the defence didn’t need to prove a psychiatric disorder as that is not the standard for the crime of infanticide to apply.

Secondly, it was not proven she did not suffer from psychosis. As she was never examined shortly after the birth & neonaticide, it cannot be proven one way or the other all we have is the expert opinions of two psychiatrists that examined her years later. One expert, for the prosecution, found her perfectly stable and this expert was (unusually) criticised by the judge for being unprofessional and overtly biased against the defendant. The other expert did not diagnose her with any disorder, but did note that she suffered from both pregnancy denial (the delusion) and also from false memories (not the same as believing your lies) and concluded she was disturbed in her mind at the time -which is the standard for the crime of infanticide.

The jury sided with one opinion over the other- that of the prosecutions expert. This is not the same as fact or proven by any measure.

Thirdly, both the crimes of murder and infanticide related to the intentional, deliberate - written as “willful omission or action” in the infanticide statute, so that is not a point supporting murder over infanticide.

I keep coming back to the fact that if there was evidence that she was suffering from psychosis or false memory syndrome that would have been the basis of her defense. You simply can't jump to the conclusion that a defendant's statements in court are the result of psychosis etc if that's not been presented as an explanation.

I really don't know why they didn't opt to plead guilty to infanticide and present their evidence around her state of mind. Because the defense they opted for (essentially that the baby was potentially stillborn or fatally injured during the birth process, as oppose to due to intentionally actions to kill him) was quite clearly contradicted by the evidence.

Well, Mayo’s counsel don’t get to decide what plea she gives. She chose to not plead guilty to infanticide and go through with the trial for murder. This isn’t sane, only someone who believes they are innocent despite the evidence would opt for this and the law commission in their recommendations regarding how infanticide isn’t being applied the way it should found that many women who do neonaticide with the psychotic form of pregnancy denial do opt for this self-destructive path because they are still mentally disturbed.

Secondly the defence did present a case for a disturbed state of mind:
“It's possible that Mayo's state of mind was disturbed when she killed her son. One expert said she had created a false memory in order to repress her actions, to "block out the bad bits, the bits that are hard to live with".
"As a 15-year-old girl giving birth, she went into a state of shock, of panic and distress, with very high anxiety and emotional trauma," Dr John Sandford said.
"Such events could lead to a disturbance of the balance of her mind."

What you describe wasn’t their defence at all, you are describing the false memory that Mayo believes is a true memory of what happened.

The jury sided with one opinion over the other- that of the prosecutions expert. This is not the same as fact or proven by any measure

If two experts disagree, then that’s what the jury have to do, isn’t it? But they don’t “side”, which implies bias, they have to look at the evidence, listen to the experts’ opinions and go with the one they believe to be most correct. The defence talked of “possibly” and “could have”.

Somebody can do something wrong knowingly and without psychosis, and then regret it. If it was something very bad, they might indeed block out the details of what they did, but that doesn’t mean they were suffering with psychosis when they committed the bad act, just that they can’t face up to what they did.

Mayo has had a long time to deal with/think about/face what happened. She hasn’t done that. The judge was at pains to say he would state facts prior to his sentencing statement. He mentions the doctor who was claimed to be biased against Mayo, but continues,

”However, I accept the prosecution's submissions that, on any view, you knew you were pregnant and about to give birth an hour or so before you did so. At that time there is no question of the balance of your mind being disturbed by pregnancy denial or any other condition”

It was a 10:2 majority verdict, so there was clearly some debate by the jury.

I feel desperately sorry for both mother and baby.

I'm still a bit hmmm. I'm thinking that if a man had some kind of mental breakdown and, for example, raped a young woman we'd not be seeing such sympathy. I mean, look at Barbie Kardashian. Almost certainly a worse upbringing and loads of trauma yet nobody excuses him on here for his actions.

Yea some of these people are absolutely full of shit. Hats off to all other traumatised teenage girls for not battering their babies, it's obviously really difficult 🙄

This is exactly it! Research has shown that women who commit infanticide often feel this. They cannot except that the baby is real or a person. It is a form of denial and definitely indicates that the balance of the mind is disturbed. That is why the infanticide act was introduced. This was clearly infanticide and is a miscarriage of justice inflicted on a child. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/1-2/36/section/1

I agree @Faybian

That makes so much sense @RidiculousBastards

This research predated 1938, did it? 🤔

However, I accept the prosecution's submissions that, on any view, you knew you were pregnant and about to give birth an hour or so before you did so. At that time there is no question of the balance of your mind being disturbed by pregnancy denial or any other condition”

I find this a perplexing statement on the judge’s part. She seems to have had a 48 labour judging from when pains started.

So an hour before the baby was born was 47 hours after that lonely, silent, painful labour began.

47 hours of discomfort, pain, and tiredness. The mind under those circumstances is unlikely to be normal.

So what does the judge mean by saying “At that time there is no question of the balance of your mind being disturbed by pregnancy denial or any other condition.”

???

I know I am completely confused, but I don’t understand why it was up to her to choose to be charged with Infanticide.
Was the possibility of an Infanticide verdict really all up to her, but lost to her as a possibility because she kept denying she killed her baby?

I thought the judge at one point told the jury they could give a verdict of Infanticide - so it would be up to the jury to go with that Infanticide option if they so chose, but they decided not to. Am I mistaken?

The judge’s final summary the day before yesterday never brings it up Infanticide, or did I miss that?

Not sure what you mean? Obviously research was done before the act but a lot has also been done since. Here is a very relevant an article written in 2019 on the subject. One of the authors is Dr Emma Milne, a proffesor at Durham who specializes in infanticide. It makes it clear, as does her book, that the profile of a woman who commits infanticide is exactly that of Paris Mayo: https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/docs/default-source/article_files/013_nlj_7824_specialist_crime-brennan-milne.pdf?sfvrsn=21a00d0e_3

AgathaSpencerGregson · Today 15:01

This research predated 1938, did it? 🤔

Are you meaning it ought to be out of date?

In modern times,

The Law Commission and the Government have seen fit to keep the Infanticide Act as a separate and different from ‘diminished responsibility’
https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/court-proceedings/infanticide-and-criminal-law

Infanticide and the criminal lawWhat is meant by infanticide?

Under the criminal law of England and Wales, infanticide is both an offence in its own right and a partial defence to the charge of murder. Only a biological mother who kills her own child within 12 months of the birth can be charged with infanticide or rely on it as a defence. The death can be by either act or omission.
Infanticide Act 1938

Under s 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938, (as amended by s 57 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), infanticide can apply where a woman:

• by any wilful act or omission;
• causes the death of her child who is aged under 12 months;
• but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child;
• or by reason of the effect of lactation caused by the birth of the child then;
• notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that, but for this Act, the offence would have amounted to murder;
• she shall be guilty of an offence of infanticide; and
• may for such an offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of the child.

R v Gore (2007) EWCA Crim 2789 established that there is no need for all the ingredients of murder to be proved before a defendant could be convicted of infanticide. The case confirmed that the aim of Parliament was to create a new offence of infanticide which covered circumstances much wider than offences that would otherwise be murder. The mens rea for infanticide, therefore, does not require any intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Burden of proof

In a case where infanticide is claimed for an offence that otherwise would have been framed as murder or manslaughter the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove a claim of infanticide beyond a reasonable doubt.
What will be the punishment for a mother convicted of infanticide?

The maximum penalty for infanticide is life imprisonment. However, in practice a non-custodial sentence is usually the outcome. This non-custodial sentence will however, often be subject to a treatment or a hospital order.
Problems with the law of infanticide

The possibility that infanticide could be found in cases whereby a homicide could not be established was an issue which has been highlighted by the Law Commission. For example, the interpretation of ‘wilful act’, could include a negligent act which falls below the standard of gross negligence which is necessary for the offence of manslaughter to be established. Following this, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 clarified the position that infanticide cannot be charged in circumstances which would not lead to a homicide.
Infanticide versus diminished responsibility

Some feel the law surrounding infanticide should be abolished with the defence of diminished responsibility applying to this situation also. This has however, been rejected by both the Law Commission and the government as it is felt that in certain situations a mother who has killed her baby after giving birth in a clandestine environment – often very young mothers – would be unable to successfully plead diminished responsibility where the burden of proof rests with the defe

Having had puerpural psychosis twice I can tell you that I have lots of gaps in my memory from those times. I don't remember, even when shown photos with me present, of ever being there. They are complete voids and nothing I'm shown or told provokes any sort of recall. If asked I would have to say I don't remember as I have nothing else to offer. I also did some risky and really out of character things that I would never have even thought about doing when in my right mind.
I'm not sure that years later a doctor would have been able to confirm or deny that I had had puerpural psychosis once I had recovered because I've had no issues since and was weaned off medication to have another baby where I didn't even have PND

The judge directed the jury that they could convict of infanticide and acquit of murder. That would not have been covered in the recently published sentencing remarks but in the summing up of the case delivered by the judge to the jury prior to them retiring to consider their verdict.
in some cases of this kind the defence might offer to plead guilty to a lesser offence such as infanticide if the more serious charge is withdrawn. It is up to the prosecution ultimately to decide whether or not to accept it (judges can intervene if they think a deal is inappropriate but in practice this rarely happens). It seems unlikely that such an offer could have been made in this case since she seems, as far as I can tell, to have denied inflicting the fatal injuries, or at least doing so intentionally. Although her version of events seems bizarre to say the least.

CPS usually starts out by charging with one count of murder in cases like this. Then the girl/woman is often offered a chance for it to be reduced to a conviction for infanticide in return for a guilty plea. If you plead guilty, there is no trial. I had read Mayo was offered this too but refused to plead guilty on the basis of her false memory of the baby being still born and having blood coming out of his mouth. (Sorry still can’t find where I read that, but it’s fairly common.)

So, if the defendant doesn’t submit a guilty plea to infanticide or if they do but CPS refuses to accept it, then the trial for murder goes on. The judge then gave the jury the option to return a verdict of guilty to the lesser charge of infanticide instead of murder. So the jury decided infanticide vs murder as well as guilty/not guilty. This is also common.

The judges final summary has to reflect the decision of the jury and since the jury sided with the prosecution on murder, he had to state that the jury found she was not disturbed in her mind as that is the key difference between infanticide and murder. Both murder and infanticide are intentional killings of a newborn or infant either by action or inaction.

He had to highlight how narrow this was by limiting the not disturbed in the balance of her mind to only 1hr before birth because it’s clear from her medical notes that she had disturbances of the mind during her pregnancy and also after she had killed the baby. In other words, her entire conviction hinges on the expert opinion that her balance of mind was not disturbed for a short window of time. An expert he roundly criticised for bias and unprofessionalism.

I think the judge feels it’s a miscarriage of justice too, and that there should be an appeal.

Faybyan . Today 15:47

Thank for this article you posted.

It shows the intentions behind the Infanticide Act and how the merciful principles behind it have not only been upheld but reinforced in a recent 2018* Appeal Court.
(The case involved the killing of a newborn baby by its mother using a violent method and disposal of the baby in a bin.)

https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/docs/default-source/article_files/013_nlj_7824_specialist_crime-brennan-milne.pdf?sfvrsn=21a00d0e_3

That's an interesting suggestion. He refers to how she will be judged by social media and mainstream media and appears to think that as the jury have convicted her of murder he is honour bound to impose a 12 year sentence (he could have kept it at 9 though). He was wrong on this, even the Daily Mail have been restrained in their comments and all the twitter comments I have seen appear perplexed as to how she could have been convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 years. I do hope there is an appeal. It seems to me very obvious that the balance of her mind was disturbed, and if it was, then it is clearly infanticide.

Apologies that was to @Faybian

The judge directed the jury that they could convict of infanticide and acquit of murder. That would not have been covered in the recently published sentencing remarks but in the summing up of the case delivered by the judge to the jury prior to them retiring to consider their verdict.

Thank you for answering on this detail, as I was unclear on that.

So to me, if this was the last thing the judge said in summing up before the jury deliberated on their verdict, it was the jury’s decision not to come to the verdict of Infanticide instead of Murder. It was all down to the jury and this jury chose ‘thumbs down’.

It’s a fantastic summary and Mayo’s case hits every aspect mentioned.

Thank you AP5Diva and AgathaSpencerGregson for your answers.

As a layman about court proceedings and the law, I find it difficult to be clear about what happened in this case, especially without the whole transcript to read through.

Agree with all of this.

Obvious to you perhaps, but less so to the jury, clearly. And they heard all the evidence; you didn’t.
intrigued also as to why you think the judge got the sentence wrong. He set out the guidelines and how he was applying them in his remarks. In what respect do you believe his reasoning to be flawed?

I would add also that the daily mail and twitterers are not necessarily noted for their legal expertise, so I’m not sure we should rely too heavily on what they have to say …