Rich Bloke Kills Girlfriend ‘During Rough Sex’ - gets 3 years

[Magnus McGinty]

You can get up to 7 years for possession of pills ffs.

 

[wiskey]

wow weeps that's sobering

 

[xenon]

What the fuck is up with the judges in these sort of cases. Are they misogynists, obsequiously enamoured with the rich, feel perversely subconsciously or not so, socially allied to them in some way, sheltered and or just a bit dim?

 

[tonysingh]

What the fuck is up with the judges in these sort of cases. Are they misogynists, obsequiously enamoured with the rich, feel perversely subconsciously or not so, socially allied to them in some way, sheltered and or just a bit dim?

All of the above.

 

[two sheds]

I have a mate who was mincemeated by the British legal system (finest money can buy, sir) and he said that the higher up the barrister was, so particularly QCs, they more judges listened to them.

I'd said to him that I hate lawyers because they give access to the law at £150+ an hour and I could understand why judges are persuaded by them and he said "No, the judges are as bad - they let the lawyers get away with it".

Eta that was civil case, but I can't see it being any different for criminal cases.

 

[Sprocket.]

Words fail me. There is obviously no justice here, only a horrible, violent death.
If by some circumstance, the rich bloke had died, purely by accident, you can imagine the women would already be serving 15 years.

 

[existentialist]

I'm a bring back breaking on the wheel sort of person for cases like this

At least that way their desserts are certain rather than having to rely on the vagaries of chance inside

"Deserts", surely?

 

[Pickman's model]

"Deserts", surely?

Could leave them staked out in the atacama I suppose

 

[weepiper]

'she consented to it' is the new 'she deserved it'


'Rough sex' claim man guilty of murder

Murder suspect claims 'rough sex' killed woman found dead in the woods dressed as Poison Ivy | Daily Mail Online

 

[Pickman's model]

Words fail me. There is obviously no justice here, only a horrible, violent death.
If by some circumstance, the rich bloke had died, purely by accident, you can imagine the women would already be serving 15 years.

Judge would be, I'll see your fifteen and raise you to 20

 

[Athos]

Three years eight months is derisory for what this piece of shit has done. Especially when he'll be out in a year and ten months (half his sentences will be on license), and probably earlier - out on a tag after 18 months or so.

The problem is that, despite charging him with murder and GBH, the CPS agreed to accept a plea for manslaughter (and only, gross negligence manslaughter, rather than unlawful act manslaughter). And that was on the basis of his failure to call an ambulance, rather than the infliction of injuries.

The judge was then bound by the sentencing guidelines for that offence, whereby, because this wasn't an ongoing act or part of a criminal enterprise, it ranked as medium culpability. And, whilst there were some aggravating features (e.g. alcohol), there were also some mitigating ones (e.g. previous good character). Such that he couldn't have given a sentence much higher than five and a half years, which, once he's given one third credit for a guilty plea becomes the three years eight months.

Why did the CPS accept that lesser plea? I suspect they thought 'a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush', as they could see a real possibility of him walking on the murder charge, because it'd be very difficult to prove intention (beyond reasonable doubt), and causation - that the injuries he inflicted were the casue of death (as opposed to the drugs and alcohol). Undoubtedly, that would have involved a assessment of the likely attitudes of any jury (as well as other factors, like the fact he could afford the very best lawyers). Sadly, I suspect that would have taken into account social attitudes to a successful, middle class man versus a woman who liked 'kinky' sex.

The upshot is that, whilst it's attractive to blame out- of-touch judges, this travesty is more likely the consequence of living in a pervasive misogynist culture.

 

[Edie]

Three years eight months is derisory for what this piece of shit has done. Especially when he'll be out in a year and ten months (half his sentences will be on license), and probably earlier - out on a tag after 18 months or so.

The problem is that, despite charging him with murder and GBH, the CPS agreed to accept a plea for manslaughter (and only, gross negligence manslaughter, rather than unlawful act manslaughter). And that was on the basis of his failure to call an ambulance, rather than the infliction of injuries.

The judge was then bound by the sentencing guidelines for that offence, whereby, because this wasn't an ongoing act or part of a criminal enterprise, it ranked as medium culpability. And, whilst there were some aggravating features (e.g. alcohol), there were also some mitigating ones (e.g. previous good character). Such that he couldn't have given a sentence much higher than five and a half years, which, once he's given one third credit for a guilty plea becomes the three years eight months.

Why did the CPS accept that lesser plea? I suspect they thought 'a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush', as they could see a real possibility of him walking on the murder charge, because it'd be very difficult to prove intention (beyond reasonable doubt). Undoubtedly, that would have involved a assessment of the likely attitudes of any jury. Sadly, I suspect that would have taken into account social attitudes to a successful, middle class man versus a woman who liked 'kinky' sex.

The upshot is that, whilst it's attractive to blame out- of-touch judges, this travesty is more likely the consequence of living in a pervasive misogynist culture.

That makes me so sad

 

[Athos]

That makes me so sad

Sorry.

 

[two sheds]

The reason the CPS reduced the charges is because juries haven't convicted in the past which has to be down to judges not giving correct directions. So down to unscrupulous lawyers and misogynistic judges again.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Three years eight months is derisory for what this piece of shit has done. Especially when he'll be out in a year and ten months (half his sentences will be on license), and probably earlier - out on a tag after 18 months or so.

The problem is that, despite charging him with murder and GBH, the CPS agreed to accept a plea for manslaughter (and only, gross negligence manslaughter, rather than unlawful act manslaughter). And that was on the basis of his failure to call an ambulance, rather than the infliction of injuries.

The judge was then bound by the sentencing guidelines for that offence, whereby, because this wasn't an ongoing act or part of a criminal enterprise, it ranked as medium culpability. And, whilst there were some aggravating features (e.g. alcohol), there were also some mitigating ones (e.g. previous good character). Such that he couldn't have given a sentence much higher than five and a half years, which, once he's given one third credit for a guilty plea becomes the three years eight months.

Why did the CPS accept that lesser plea? I suspect they thought 'a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush', as they could see a real possibility of him walking on the murder charge, because it'd be very difficult to prove intention (beyond reasonable doubt). Undoubtedly, that would have involved a assessment of the likely attitudes of any jury. Sadly, I suspect that would have taken into account social attitudes to a successful, middle class man versus a woman who liked 'kinky' sex.

The upshot is that, whilst it's attractive to blame out- of-touch judges, this travesty is more likely the consequence of living in a pervasive misogynist culture.

Excellent analysis. The defendant could have afforded a very expensive legal team as well, which the CPS probably took into account.

It’s beyond shocking that he was jailed for *failing to call an ambulance* rather than murdering somebody.

 

[Athos]

The reason the CPS reduced the charges is because juries haven't convicted in the past which has to be down to judges not giving correct directions. So down to unscrupulous lawyers and misogynistic judges again.

I'm not for a moment saying judges and lawyers aren't misogynistic. But that's a gross oversimplification of a much deeper issue.

And I don't accept that acquittals are necessarily a consequence of bad directions by the judge.

ETA: Whilst, in this case, the acquittals for murder and GBH were on the judge's direction, I think that was a procedural issue, following the CPS's agreement to accept the plea for the lesser offence.

 

[tonysingh]

Three years eight months is derisory for what this piece of shit has done. Especially when he'll be out in a year and ten months (half his sentences will be on license), and probably earlier - out on a tag after 18 months or so.

The problem is that, despite charging him with murder and GBH, the CPS agreed to accept a plea for manslaughter (and only, gross negligence manslaughter, rather than unlawful act manslaughter). And that was on the basis of his failure to call an ambulance, rather than the infliction of injuries.

The judge was then bound by the sentencing guidelines for that offence, whereby, because this wasn't an ongoing act or part of a criminal enterprise, it ranked as medium culpability. And, whilst there were some aggravating features (e.g. alcohol), there were also some mitigating ones (e.g. previous good character). Such that he couldn't have given a sentence much higher than five and a half years, which, once he's given one third credit for a guilty plea becomes the three years eight months.

Why did the CPS accept that lesser plea? I suspect they thought 'a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush', as they could see a real possibility of him walking on the murder charge, because it'd be very difficult to prove intention (beyond reasonable doubt). Undoubtedly, that would have involved a assessment of the likely attitudes of any jury. Sadly, I suspect that would have taken into account social attitudes to a successful, middle class man versus a woman who liked 'kinky' sex.

The upshot is that, whilst it's attractive to blame out- of-touch judges, this travesty is more likely the consequence of living in a pervasive misogynist culture.

Does it specifically state half will be on licence? Because not long ago it changed thst any determinate sentence over 2 years means you do two thirds in jail and 1 third on licence. Still nothing like long enough mind you

 

[Athos]

Does it specifically state half will be on licence? Because not long ago it changed thst any determinate sentence over 2 years means you do two thirds in jail and 1 third on licence. Still nothing like long enough mind you

I think the requirement to serve two thirds only applies to Extended Sentences.

 

[Edie]

It’s beyond shocking that he was jailed for *failing to call an ambulance* rather than murdering somebody.

The value of women’s lives.

 

[tonysingh]

I think the requirement to serve two thirds only applies to Extended Sentences.

Yes, apologies for my comment then. I had just read that myself.

And I'm even more.. .astonished the original judge gave the sentence he did. I'm currently reading the criteria for the extended sentence guidelines and he totally fits the bill.

 

[wiskey]

Interesting comments on this on woman's hour on R4 (first interesting thing I've heard on there for a very long time!).

They're calling it the '50 shades of grey defence', I didn't realise that it was only in 2009 that the 'she nagged me so much I killed her' defence was dropped.

Makes me feel sad that the family of Natalie Connolly didn't have their statement about who she was read out in court.

Eta: Harriet Harman seems to be speaking out against his sentence.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Why did the CPS accept that lesser plea? I suspect they thought 'a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush', as they could see a real possibility of him walking on the murder charge, because it'd be very difficult to prove intention (beyond reasonable doubt). Undoubtedly, that would have involved a assessment of the likely attitudes of any jury. Sadly, I suspect that would have taken into account social attitudes to a successful, middle class man versus a woman who liked 'kinky' sex
.

You would think it would be easy to show intent, it being impossible to bludgeon someone in the back of the head thirteen times by mistake. Still, I guess the CPS would have known he was rich and thus lawyered up to the eyeballs and so didn't fancy their chances.

 

[Edie]

Interesting comments on this on woman's hour on R4 (first interesting thing I've heard on there for a very long time!).

They're calling it the '50 shades of grey defence', I didn't realise that it was only in 2009 that the 'she nagged me so much I killed her' defence was dropped.

Makes me feel sad that the family of Natalie Connolly didn't have their statement about who she was read out in court.

Eta: Harriet Harman seems to be speaking out against his sentence.

Whaaaa?! Up to 2009 men could use nagging as a defence for murder? You cannot be serious My god women we still have so far to go

 

[wiskey]

Whaaaa?! Up to 2009 men could use nagging as a defence for murder? You cannot be serious My god women we still have so far to go

Old article but it lays it out 'Crime of passion' is no defence

'nagging and shagging'

 

[Athos]

You would think it would be easy to show intent, it being impossible to bludgeon someone in the back of the head thirteen times by mistake. Still, I guess the CPS would have known he was rich and thus lawyered up to the eyeballs and so didn't fancy their chances.

Yes, I'm sure knowing he had some of best defence lawyers money could buy added to the CPS's lack of appetite.

 

[Edie]

Old article but it lays it out 'Crime of passion' is no defence

'nagging and shagging'

I killed her, but it as all her fault.

Ministers argue that it reflects a medieval view of marriage, in which a man whose honour is insulted by a domineering or unfaithful wife is entitled to fatal revenge rather than a divorce. It also encourages defendants to blacken the victim's name in court, painting her as a bad wife.

Men. Whose egos are so fragile and whose lack of control so terrifying.

 

[two sheds]

I'm not for a moment saying judges and lawyers aren't misogynistic. But that's a gross oversimplification of a much deeper issue.

And I don't accept that acquittals are necessarily a consequence of bad directions by the judge.

ETA: Whilst, in this case, the acquittals for murder and GBH were on the judge's direction, I think that was a procedural issue, following the CPS's agreement to accept the plea for the lesser offence.

Yes as you said originally, it was a procedural issue following the CPS's accepting the plea for the lesser offence. But that's a gross oversimplification of a much deeper issue.

As when unscrupulous lawyers are allowed by judges to get away with holding up a woman's lacy underwear in court as part of a rape defence: Outcry over teen's underwear in rape trial . And in the UK: Mum of suicide girl whose thong was used in rape trial backs #ThisIsNotConsent .

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Rough sex that went a bit far - The old "Jack the Ripper defence"...

 

[Athos]

Yes as you said originally, it was a procedural issue following the CPS's accepting the plea for the lesser offence. But that's a gross oversimplification of a much deeper issue.

As when unscrupulous lawyers are allowed by judges to get away with holding up a woman's lacy underwear in court as part of a rape defence: Outcry over teen's underwear in rape trial . And in the UK: Mum of suicide girl whose thong was used in rape trial backs #ThisIsNotConsent .

Yes, absolutely. Those things are utterly disgusting, and ought not to be allowed (even in a system of bourgeois criminal 'justice'). Sadly, the system is, largely, a reflection of social attitudes. Pointing at individual or of touch judges or egregious barristers behaviour overlooks the deeper causes. (I'm not defending those individuals, but hope that cases such as these help us to question wider attitudes - where they come from, and whose interests they serve.)

 

[Edie]

2017
139 women
2 in 5 involving excessive violence