Good morning Twitter!
In what will go down either as social media's greatest ever public service or an excruciating, tumbleweed attempt at organised fun, I shall be spending the rest of the morning acceding to requests to offer razor sharp legal analysis of popular songs. 🎵
In what will go down either as social media's greatest ever public service or an excruciating, tumbleweed attempt at organised fun, I shall be spending the rest of the morning acceding to requests to offer razor sharp legal analysis of popular songs. 🎵
In case you missed it, this below is the root of the trouble, and the reason why, nearly two weeks on, my notifications will not die down. Thus I say: let's slay this beast. Bring me your cherished tunes, and I shall pummel them with fists:
First off, we have Bronwen, the first of many to volunteer Bob Marley's "I Shot The Sheriff".
🎵 I shot the sheriff
But I didn't shoot no deputy, oh no! Oh!
I shot the sheriff
But I didn't shoot no deputy,
Yeah! All around in my home town,
They're tryin' to track me down;
They say they want to bring me in guilty
For the killing of a deputy,
For the life of a deputy. 🎵
But I didn't shoot no deputy, oh no! Oh!
I shot the sheriff
But I didn't shoot no deputy,
Yeah! All around in my home town,
They're tryin' to track me down;
They say they want to bring me in guilty
For the killing of a deputy,
For the life of a deputy. 🎵
Now on its face, this appears to be a straightforward offer of "mixed pleas" on a two count indictment.
Count 1 - Murder of the sheriff: Guilty
Count 2 - Murder of the deputy: Not Guilty
But closer inspection of the lyrics reveals otherwise...
Count 1 - Murder of the sheriff: Guilty
Count 2 - Murder of the deputy: Not Guilty
But closer inspection of the lyrics reveals otherwise...
It is plain that Mr Marley is in fact offering a defence to Count 1:
🎵 Oh, now, now. Oh!
(I shot the sheriff.) - the sheriff.
(But I swear it was in selfdefence.)
Oh, no! (Ooh, ooh, oo-oh) Yeah!
I say: I shot the sheriff - Oh, Lord! -
(And they say it is a capital offence.) 🎵
🎵 Oh, now, now. Oh!
(I shot the sheriff.) - the sheriff.
(But I swear it was in selfdefence.)
Oh, no! (Ooh, ooh, oo-oh) Yeah!
I say: I shot the sheriff - Oh, Lord! -
(And they say it is a capital offence.) 🎵
Now presentationally, I would not be advising Mr Marley to open his evidence to a jury in the way that he does. I would say that repeatedly admitting to shooting the sheriff, and only volunteering self-defence a couple of verses in, is not ideal.
Of course, the Bar Code of Conduct prohibits witness coaching in England and Wales, so his barrister could not help him practise how he gives his evidence. But by asking the right questions in examination-in-chief, the advocate should be able to frame the narrative. This is poor.
I would also query how much this helps the defence case:
🎵Sheriff John Brown always hated me,
For what, I don't know:
Every time I plant a seed,
He said kill it before it grow -
He said kill them before they grow.🎵
🎵Sheriff John Brown always hated me,
For what, I don't know:
Every time I plant a seed,
He said kill it before it grow -
He said kill them before they grow.🎵
To a jury's ear, this sounds as if Bob is disproportionately aggrieved over a pre-existing horticultural dispute with the law enforcement agencies. This plants a motive in the jury's mind.
Plants. Tee hee. Cos it's horticul... never mind. On we go.
Plants. Tee hee. Cos it's horticul... never mind. On we go.
I'm just saying, listing reasons why you hate the man you killed is a curious strategy. But this is a double murder, which I have never defended, and I'm sure a capable QC is instructed and knows what he's doing with his client's evidence.
And so to the meat of the evidence:
🎵 Freedom came my way one day
And I started out of town, yeah!
All of a sudden I saw sheriff John Brown
Aiming to shoot me down,
So I shot - I shot - I shot him down and I say:
If I am guilty I will pay.🎵
Bob is not doing himself favours.
🎵 Freedom came my way one day
And I started out of town, yeah!
All of a sudden I saw sheriff John Brown
Aiming to shoot me down,
So I shot - I shot - I shot him down and I say:
If I am guilty I will pay.🎵
Bob is not doing himself favours.
In order to successfully run self-defence, Bob will need to show that he did or might have used reasonable force in self-defence. He need not wait for John Brown to fire first - self-defence can be pre-emptive - but so much detail is missing here.
What were the circumstances? What was Bob doing such that JB was aiming a gun at him? Were there others present? Could Bob have run or retreated? Were any words exchanged? It is frankly staggering that Bob's counsel does not elicit this basic detail.
I would imagine Bob *wants* to say that this was an unlawful attempt upon his life by a rogue police officer in circumstances where he felt he had little choice but to respond with lethal force. If this is is so, WHY DOESN'T HE MAKE IT EXPLICIT?
Ultimately the burden is on the prosecution to disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt, but proper witness handling could have really improved Bob's evidence. On balance, I would imagine a sympathetic jury *might* find that they can't be sure and acquit. But...
There's Counts 3 and 4:
Count 3 - Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (s.16 Firearms Act 1968)
Count 4 - Possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life (also s.16)
*No* defence whatsoever has been offered to these counts.
Count 3 - Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (s.16 Firearms Act 1968)
Count 4 - Possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life (also s.16)
*No* defence whatsoever has been offered to these counts.
The type of firearm is also not specified. If it is a prohibited weapon as specified by 5(1)(a) - (c) of the 1968 Act, the minimum 5-year sentencing provisions of s.51A apply. I question whether he has even been advised of this.
(I should say that alternative firearms counts may well also feature, but at this stage I don't want to "overload the indictment". Let's keep it simple for the jury).
As for murder of the Deputy, it is unclear how Bob has been identified. How many witnesses? Is there scientific evidence linking him to the candidate firearm? There is an absence of evidence that would make me fairly optimistic on this charge.
Bottom line: Bob may well get the benefit of the doubt over the murders. But he has raised no defence that I can see in relation to the firearms. He'll be lucky to escape with the minimum 5 years. Sorry Bob.
Next one:
And the next:
And the next:
One more:
And another:
And again:
