The defendant in this case was charged with murder.
Murder, in English & Welsh law, is where somebody unlawfully (ie not in self-defence or for some other lawful reason) kills another person, intending to kill or cause really serious harm.
The facts are well-known (and available in this link). On the face of it, this looks like murder. Unlawful killing with apparent intention to kill.
However.
There are certain defences that can arise. One such defence is “diminished responsibility”.
Diminished responsibility is a “partial defence”. That means that, if it succeeds, a defendant is not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. The significance is in the sentence - murder carries mandatory life imprisonment, manslaughter does not.
So what is diminished responsibility?
It is set out in law.
The first question is whether the defendant “was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning” at the time of the offence.
In this case, the Defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic. That would meet the criteria.
The next question is whether that “abnormality” had certain features, namely:
- arose from a recognised medical condition
- provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts
- substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to do one or more of the things in subsection 1A.
So what does subsection 1A say?
The defendant must be substantially impaired in his ability to:
- understand the nature of his conduct; OR
- form a rational judgment; OR
- exercise self-control
An important point is that the burden to prove the defence is on the defendant. However it’s not the same standard as the prosecution generally has (“beyond reasonable doubt” or making a jury “sure”) - the defendant only has to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities.
If the defence is proved on the balance of probabilities (ie the jury think it is *more likely than not* to be right), the defendant must be acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter.
So what happened in Emily Jones’ case?
Well this excellent report from @TheBoltonNews has important detail.
The prosecution opened the case on the basis that they did not accept what the defence said about diminished responsibility.
However, then the psychiatric evidence was called.
And the thing about trials is that they are dynamic. Things can shift in an instant. So it proved.
The psychiatric evidence all supported the defence of diminished responsibility. This was clearly not what the prosecution were expecting, but experts are under a duty to give independent evidence. If their expert opinions change, they must say.
That seems to be what happened.
Where the evidence at trial seriously undermines the prosecution case, the prosecution should not carry on regardless. Prosecutors must continue to review the prospects of the case throughout. If there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, they must stop the case.
Those of us who did not hear the evidence are not best placed to form judgements on the correctness of such decisions. But one thing I can assure you: this decision will not have been taken lightly. It will have been subjected to intense scrutiny by the most experienced lawyers.
As for what happens next, the defendant will be sentenced. I would imagine the court will be considering a hospital order with restrictions, which will have the effect of detaining the defendant in hospital indefinitely until she is deemed safe to be released.
As for why there is such a defence in the first place, it’s because the law recognises that somebody whose actions are the product of a serious mental health condition is not as culpable as somebody without such a condition who acts knowingly and deliberately.
Is the law in this area perfect? Hell no, and much has been written about it.
But the general principle of dealing with people according to their culpability, and ensuring that the criminal law reflects that, is an important one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We don’t prosecute out of vengeance, or with personal animus towards the accused. We don’t seek a “win” at all costs. We don’t ask for “the maximum sentence”. We don’t appeal to a jury’s worse nature, or use tricks or adverse publicity to secure cheap advantage.
We take fairness seriously. We ensure disclosure - material capable reasonably of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution - is made. If we believe there’s insufficient evidence & a risk of wrongful conviction, or it’s not in the public interest to prosecute, we say.
Whatever the outcome of this hearing, an Attorney General who is not even qualified to prosecute a magistrates’ court trial should not be personally prosecuting this extremely serious case.
A shameful exercise in politicking for tabloid applause.
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged “friend”, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are “wet liberal judges” who are “soft on criminals”.
The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.
Treasury Counsel who usually represent the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal for appeals against “unduly lenient” sentences are appointed from the best and most experienced criminal barristers.
The Attorney General has not to my knowledge prosecuted a magistrates’ trial.
Apparently Ms Braverman believes that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) needs reminding “how important this issue is to the government”.
And a spoiler of what Ms Braverman thinks about the “wet, liberal judges” of the Court of Appeal.
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”.