In response to several queries about this awful case and today’s verdict, a few legal pointers on the distinction between murder and manslaughter. [THREAD]
In order for the prosecution to prove murder, they must prove that the accused unlawfully killed the deceased, and that the accused intended *either* to kill or to cause really serious harm.
The prosecution must prove this beyond reasonable doubt (or so the jury is “sure”).
The prosecution must prove this beyond reasonable doubt (or so the jury is “sure”).
If an unlawful act (say, an assault) results in somebody’s death, but the accused did not intend to cause death/really serious harm, they will be guilty of manslaughter.
Proving a case beyond reasonable doubt / so that a jury is sure of guilt is a very high threshold. As juries are told, if you think a defendant is possibly guilty, or probably guilty, or most likely guilty - that is not enough. The verdict in that case would be not guilty.
In the case involving Pc Harper, it appears (although I stress I do not know all the facts) that the defendants admitted manslaughter but denied murder, on the basis that they didn’t intend to kill or cause really serious harm.
All we know from the verdicts is that the jury were not sure on the evidence that the prosecution had proved murder. No doubt those who sat through the trial and heard all the evidence will have their own views. But those of us who didn’t aren’t in the best position to comment.
