We have more information now about the case of #ClaireParry, following news reports of the judge’s sentencing remarks. And it is complicated, more so than I had appreciated when I tweeted last night.
So a brief [THREAD] to look at what seems to have happened.
It was widely reported yesterday that the defendant, Timothy Brehmer, had been acquitted by a jury of the murder of Claire Parry. It was said that he strangled her after she sent a text message to his wife telling her of their (Parry and Brehmer’s) affair.
It was also reported that Brehmer had admitted manslaughter, but denied intending to kill or cause really serious harm (the necessary intention for murder), claiming that the fatal injuries were sustained “accidentally” during a “kerfuffle”.
It means that if the jury think he might have intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he’s not guilty.
If the jury think he *probably* intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he is not guilty.
If the jury were *almost sure* he did, he would be not guilty. [2/3]
The burden and standard of proof is often misunderstood. It’s something I look at in depth in #FakeLaw.
Without having heard all the evidence, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about what the jury did or did not believe. Other than - they weren’t sure. [3/3]
@davidbarrett David, you’ve read my book. You’re an intelligent man who knows that we have an adversarial system, unlike most other European states, and that therefore our legal aid budget is relatively high, and the rest of the justice budget is relatively low.
You chose not to include this
@davidbarrett You know (because you’ve read it both in that very report and in my book) that, because we have different systems, isolating legal aid and drawing the conclusion that we spend too much cannot in good faith be done.
I’d like to thank the Mail for printing this rot and giving me an opportunity to plug both Stories of the Law & How It’s Broken and #FakeLaw, both of which expose the wild dishonesty of this claim.
At the risk of giving this kind of #FakeLaw the publicity it craves, the reality is that thousands will read it, and I do think it’s important to put the truth out there.
1. We start as ever with a claim that the defendants “got £17,000 off taxpayer”, like they were handed a bag of swag. This is in fact the cost of legal aid set by the government. It’s like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant “gets” the cost of the operation in cash
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £17,000 is too much to spend on this very serious case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...