This lecture explores the Christmas classic Jingle All The Way through the lens of English & Welsh law.
Contributions are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.
This paper considers, inter alia, how Arnie/Howard’s intrepid search for the perfect Christmas present might have been different had he, Sinbad and the whole gang been subject to the law of England and Wales.
Some basic rules so we’re all singing from the same song sheet:
As I am not an American lawyer, nor diligent enough to do the research, we assume that all activity takes place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
This. The number of invitations I’ve received today to support crowdfunded private prosecutions or civil claims against the person involved, solely because he is a member of a particular political party, has been thoroughly depressing.
I have no idea what happened, and whether this is the right or wrong decision by the police. It may be a terrible error. These happen, more often than they should.
But the widespread assumption of guilt because of political affiliation does not say good things about us.
It’s important to remember that there’s a process to be followed. There may be an appeal against the police decision. Civil proceedings may still be pursued. Further information may come to light. But until that is in the public domain, our opinions are largely worthless.
Skana pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. The prosecution dropped (“offered no evidence on”) the charge of murder after developments at trial relating to the psychiatric evidence. More detail on that here:
Manslaughter by diminished responsibility, put simply, means that the legal ingredients for murder are present, but that there are serious mental health issues that reduce (although of course don’t extinguish) culpability. So the law provides for this compromise.
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”.
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.