Missing Woman Sarah Everard
Discussion
Dibble said:
Kidnap and rape don’t have mens rea/intent, IIRC, whereas murder does require the intent to kill or commit GBH. Kidnap and murder are both offences under Common Law.
I wonder if he is going to offer a guilty plea to manslaughter, on the grounds he didn’t intend to kill her/commit GBH, it was just the strangling went a bit further than he’d planned, he’d only meant to incapacitate her, rather than harm her? (I’m paraphrasing, I’m not suggesting that’s at all reasonable or acceptable conduct).
I have my own opinions on him and his now admitted conduct, which I won’t rehearse here, other than to say I’m glad he’s admitted his guilt and will hopefully spend a long time in prison. If he’s deemed to have capacity, he may well plead guilty to murder down the line, which is a bit of a double edged sword, because the family won’t have to sit through a trial, but at the same time, neither does he.
Thank you I wonder if he is going to offer a guilty plea to manslaughter, on the grounds he didn’t intend to kill her/commit GBH, it was just the strangling went a bit further than he’d planned, he’d only meant to incapacitate her, rather than harm her? (I’m paraphrasing, I’m not suggesting that’s at all reasonable or acceptable conduct).
I have my own opinions on him and his now admitted conduct, which I won’t rehearse here, other than to say I’m glad he’s admitted his guilt and will hopefully spend a long time in prison. If he’s deemed to have capacity, he may well plead guilty to murder down the line, which is a bit of a double edged sword, because the family won’t have to sit through a trial, but at the same time, neither does he.
It seems kind of strange that you can claim you didn't intend to kidnap or rape someone but that's probably my ignorance of how the legal system works and I'm taking the word intent too literally.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Dibble said:
Kidnap and rape don’t have mens rea/intent, IIRC, whereas murder does require the intent to kill or commit GBH. Kidnap and murder are both offences under Common Law.
I wonder if he is going to offer a guilty plea to manslaughter, on the grounds he didn’t intend to kill her/commit GBH, it was just the strangling went a bit further than he’d planned, he’d only meant to incapacitate her, rather than harm her? (I’m paraphrasing, I’m not suggesting that’s at all reasonable or acceptable conduct).
I have my own opinions on him and his now admitted conduct, which I won’t rehearse here, other than to say I’m glad he’s admitted his guilt and will hopefully spend a long time in prison. If he’s deemed to have capacity, he may well plead guilty to murder down the line, which is a bit of a double edged sword, because the family won’t have to sit through a trial, but at the same time, neither does he.
Thank you I wonder if he is going to offer a guilty plea to manslaughter, on the grounds he didn’t intend to kill her/commit GBH, it was just the strangling went a bit further than he’d planned, he’d only meant to incapacitate her, rather than harm her? (I’m paraphrasing, I’m not suggesting that’s at all reasonable or acceptable conduct).
I have my own opinions on him and his now admitted conduct, which I won’t rehearse here, other than to say I’m glad he’s admitted his guilt and will hopefully spend a long time in prison. If he’s deemed to have capacity, he may well plead guilty to murder down the line, which is a bit of a double edged sword, because the family won’t have to sit through a trial, but at the same time, neither does he.
It seems kind of strange that you can claim you didn't intend to kidnap or rape someone but that's probably my ignorance of how the legal system works and I'm taking the word intent too literally.
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.
Kidnap - A person is taken away by another person.
The person being taken is taken away by force or fraud (an example of fraud might be lying about who you are or where you are taking the person).
The person being taken does not consent to being taken.
You have no lawful excuse to take that person. This means that for example, a police officer arresting someone who did not want to be arrested would not be guilty of kidnapping if the arrest was legal.
There is no specific intent for kidnap (or rape). Just doing the “actions” completes the offences. So if you just decide to grab someone and cart them away without thinking about it (unlikely, I know), the offence is complete.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Thank you
It seems kind of strange that you can claim you didn't intend to kidnap or rape someone but that's probably my ignorance of how the legal system works and I'm taking the word intent too literally.
Isn’t it more the case that you have to prove intent to make a murder charge work, whereas there’s no question if you kidnapped someone.It seems kind of strange that you can claim you didn't intend to kidnap or rape someone but that's probably my ignorance of how the legal system works and I'm taking the word intent too literally.
Or, to put it another way, killing someone is not necessarily murder, but kidnapping them is definitely kidnap.
With regard to the lack of plea at this stage for the murder, he’s nothing to lose by seeing what the outcome of the medical/psychiatric examination is. If he’s declared nuts and therefore unable to form the requisite mens rea/intent, he can’t be convicted of murder.
If he is subsequently declared fit, he can still obviously plead guilty to the murder as well, later on. He won’t get “extra” for exercising his rights.
He is using the system to try and get the best possible outcome for him. It happens every single day at Courts across the country. It’s an imperfect system, but I do believe the old adage “It’s better for ten guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent person”. Like any other defendant, he deserves the best defence he can get. We can’t pick and choose who gets a robust defence and who doesn’t, which I think is the right way to go about it.
If you or I were charged with an offence - any offence - we’d both want the best defence available to us. That is only right.
If he is subsequently declared fit, he can still obviously plead guilty to the murder as well, later on. He won’t get “extra” for exercising his rights.
He is using the system to try and get the best possible outcome for him. It happens every single day at Courts across the country. It’s an imperfect system, but I do believe the old adage “It’s better for ten guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent person”. Like any other defendant, he deserves the best defence he can get. We can’t pick and choose who gets a robust defence and who doesn’t, which I think is the right way to go about it.
If you or I were charged with an offence - any offence - we’d both want the best defence available to us. That is only right.
Northernboy said:
Isn’t it more the case that you have to prove intent to make a murder charge work, whereas there’s no question if you kidnapped someone.
Or, to put it another way, killing someone is not necessarily murder, but kidnapping them is definitely kidnap.
I think Dibble has done a good job of explaining it above (thanks Dibble Or, to put it another way, killing someone is not necessarily murder, but kidnapping them is definitely kidnap.
).It's still a bit difficult to get my head around from a common sense point of view if he goes down the psychiatric route (the idea you were in control when you kidnapped and raped someone but lost control "just" for the murder part seems weird
).Hopefully the bits he's plead guilty too are enough to see him away for a long time.
Northernboy said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Thank you
It seems kind of strange that you can claim you didn't intend to kidnap or rape someone but that's probably my ignorance of how the legal system works and I'm taking the word intent too literally.
Isn’t it more the case that you have to prove intent to make a murder charge work, whereas there’s no question if you kidnapped someone.It seems kind of strange that you can claim you didn't intend to kidnap or rape someone but that's probably my ignorance of how the legal system works and I'm taking the word intent too literally.
Or, to put it another way, killing someone is not necessarily murder, but kidnapping them is definitely kidnap.
As above, he’s nothing to lose (and potentially a murder conviction to avoid) by waiting to see if he’s medically assessed as having the requisite capacity to form the intent for a murder conviction. He will obviously do what is most advantageous for him (which can include pleading guilty at the “appropriate” time (appropriate for him, I mean)).
Dibble said:
As above, he’s nothing to lose (and potentially a murder conviction to avoid) by waiting to see if he’s medically assessed as having the requisite capacity to form the intent for a murder conviction. He will obviously do what is most advantageous for him (which can include pleading guilty at the “appropriate” time (appropriate for him, I mean)).
I think you are spot on in your recent posts However it plays out on the murder it will have zero impact on how long he spends behind bars, Be it in Broadmoor or Brixton
He’s out for the count regardless
The only difference is the closure for family and understanding the how and why.
Fortunately his pleas will have helped with the trauma of the trial for her family
Dibble said:
You don’t have to intend to kidnap someone, you just have to cart them off against their will and the offence is complete. I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is no intent for kidnap, just doing it makes the offence out. It’s a bit like speeding, you don’t have to intend to break the speed limit, but if you do, you commit the offence (in general terms, it’s an oversimplified example, I know).
Counterintuitive but makes sense (if that isn't a contradiction - cheers!).Dibble said:
You don’t have to intend to kidnap someone, you just have to cart them off against their will and the offence is complete. I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is no intent for kidnap, just doing it makes the offence out. It’s a bit like speeding, you don’t have to intend to break the speed limit, but if you do, you commit the offence (in general terms, it’s an oversimplified example, I know).
Is this right? What stops a lorry driver closing a door to a container and driving off with a person who was inside (unbeknownst to the driver) from committing ‘kidnap’ then? Surely there has to be intent as well.MrMan001 said:
Dibble said:
You don’t have to intend to kidnap someone, you just have to cart them off against their will and the offence is complete. I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is no intent for kidnap, just doing it makes the offence out. It’s a bit like speeding, you don’t have to intend to break the speed limit, but if you do, you commit the offence (in general terms, it’s an oversimplified example, I know).
Is this right? What stops a lorry driver closing a door to a container and driving off with a person who was inside (unbeknownst to the driver) from committing ‘kidnap’ then? Surely there has to be intent as well.Murder however requires “malice aforethought” ... an intent
Subtle but very different
Prosecution in kidnapping has to prove the following :
the taking or carrying away of one person by another
by force or fraud
without the consent of the person so taken or carried away, and
without lawful excuse
There is no requirement that the prosecution must prove they set out with an intent to do the above before they did it .. just that they did it
If that makes sense
Edited by Earthdweller on Tuesday 8th June 18:40
Edited by Earthdweller on Tuesday 8th June 18:41
Earthdweller said:
If he has a lawful excuse then no offence committed ie he didn’t know someone was in the container
Murder however requires “malice aforethought”
Subtle but very different
If there was no offence committed, then no lawful excuse is required though right? The excuse comes after the offence is complete. It’s being suggested above that kidnap is ‘strict liability’ like speeding. I’m not so sure that’s true.Murder however requires “malice aforethought”
Subtle but very different
MrMan001 said:
If there was no offence committed, then no lawful excuse is required though right? The excuse comes after the offence is complete. It’s being suggested above that kidnap is ‘strict liability’ like speeding. I’m not so sure that’s true.
I know it’s tricky to wrap your head round, I was exactly the same when we studied it early on in my service. If you don’t know someone is there, you’re not kidnapping them. If I arrest someone, I’m not kidnapping them (assuming it’s a lawful arrest). Force someone to go with you against their will, it’s kidnap (I get what you mean, by forcing them, you’re arguably showing intent).
flashbang said:
No its not.
His barrister will bang on about how good he was at his job, this was out of character, he was under a lot of stress, he was a pinnacle of the community etc etc. He's pleaded guilty for kidnap and rape so that's a third off to start with. He'll still have to be found guilty of murder or manslaughter yet. They thought the bloke who killed those babies wouldn't get out yet he's up for parole now.
Give over, this isn't a speeding offenceHis barrister will bang on about how good he was at his job, this was out of character, he was under a lot of stress, he was a pinnacle of the community etc etc. He's pleaded guilty for kidnap and rape so that's a third off to start with. He'll still have to be found guilty of murder or manslaughter yet. They thought the bloke who killed those babies wouldn't get out yet he's up for parole now.
Earthdweller said:
Not a chance he’ll be out in 10
The key will be thrown away with this one
Without any shadow of a doubt. He's admitted kidnapping a woman off the street and raping her. He's also admitted that he "caused" her death. She died from a compression of the neck, according to the reports. I don't see how he'll avoid a murder conviction here - you don't accidentally compress someone's neck. He'll get life with a minimum term somewhere north of 30 years, I reckon. Realistically he'll never be let out. The key will be thrown away with this one
I also think it pretty much goes without saying that a lot more about him is going to come out when the trial is concluded. We know he has a history of flashing but there will be much more. People who grab young women from the street who then rape and murder them do take up abduction, rape and murder overnight.
Dibble said:
MrMan001 said:
If there was no offence committed, then no lawful excuse is required though right? The excuse comes after the offence is complete. It’s being suggested above that kidnap is ‘strict liability’ like speeding. I’m not so sure that’s true.
I know it’s tricky to wrap your head round, I was exactly the same when we studied it early on in my service. If you don’t know someone is there, you’re not kidnapping them. If I arrest someone, I’m not kidnapping them (assuming it’s a lawful arrest). Force someone to go with you against their will, it’s kidnap (I get what you mean, by forcing them, you’re arguably showing intent).
Stedman said:
flashbang said:
No its not.
His barrister will bang on about how good he was at his job, this was out of character, he was under a lot of stress, he was a pinnacle of the community etc etc. He's pleaded guilty for kidnap and rape so that's a third off to start with. He'll still have to be found guilty of murder or manslaughter yet. They thought the bloke who killed those babies wouldn't get out yet he's up for parole now.
Give over, this isn't a speeding offenceHis barrister will bang on about how good he was at his job, this was out of character, he was under a lot of stress, he was a pinnacle of the community etc etc. He's pleaded guilty for kidnap and rape so that's a third off to start with. He'll still have to be found guilty of murder or manslaughter yet. They thought the bloke who killed those babies wouldn't get out yet he's up for parole now.
I wholeheartedly agree that he should never be released and if he'd been convicted today he'd almost certainly have been given a Whole Life Order. That wasn't the state of the law when he was convicted though.
AJL308 said:
Without any shadow of a doubt. He's admitted kidnapping a woman off the street and raping her. He's also admitted that he "caused" her death. She died from a compression of the neck, according to the reports. I don't see how he'll avoid a murder conviction here - you don't accidentally compress someone's neck. He'll get life with a minimum term somewhere north of 30 years, I reckon. Realistically he'll never be let out.
I also think it pretty much goes without saying that a lot more about him is going to come out when the trial is concluded. We know he has a history of flashing but there will be much more. People who grab young women from the street who then rape and murder them do take up abduction, rape and murder overnight.
I suspect the prosecution will want to adduce as much bad character evidence about him as possible. BCE doesn’t just include previous convictions, it can include intelligence reports, work related complaints, inappropriate “banter” with/to colleagues, getting a bit too “touchy feely” on a shift night out… I’d guess the MPS professional standards mob will be going over his entire career with an extremely fine toothed comb. Obviously, some stuff may only be obvious with thee benefit if hindsight, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the prosecution try their absolute best t9 include everything that’s remotely relevant. I also think it pretty much goes without saying that a lot more about him is going to come out when the trial is concluded. We know he has a history of flashing but there will be much more. People who grab young women from the street who then rape and murder them do take up abduction, rape and murder overnight.
flashbang said:
Stedman said:
Give over, this isn't a speeding offence
You don't think his barrister will do his best to get him the lightest sentence?There’s too much public interest in this for a “soft” sentence. His position as a Police officer, someone who is in a position of power, authority and trust, will go against him too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff