Two arrested for murder after hunt supporter's death

[detective-boy]

Just seems strange we've heard neither of his release or imprisonment.

The chances are that that date was just a "plea and directions" date - that would fit the time scale. Although trials are now scheduled a lot quicker than they used to be a few years ago, it is still usually around 12 months from charge before a murder trial is held (usually due to the problems of getting two or three weeks that everyone can make, as much as anything else).

If the defendant had pleaded guilty on 27 May we'd have heard all about it as the sub judice restrictions would have ended. If not (as is probably the case), there would have been little if any coverage as all they could say way "He appeared, they wittered on a bit. He's now going to appear ...". This sort of report may make local papers, rarely makes the nationals, even in pretty high profile cases.

 

[two sheds]

stuff your bourgeoisie nonce-food up yer arse, I want an honest bacon butty and a strong sugary tea

A glass of port's out the question then

 

[detective-boy]

If anyone is interested it looks like the murder charge might be dropped

I hadn't read that when I posted ^^^^ ... honest!

 

[Spymaster]

If the defendant had pleaded guilty on 27 May we'd have heard all about it as the sub judice restrictions would have ended. If not (as is probably the case), there would have been little if any coverage as all they could say way "He appeared, they wittered on a bit. He's now going to appear ...". This sort of report may make local papers, rarely makes the nationals, even in pretty high profile cases.

Any way to find out whether the defendant is on remand or bailed, DB?

 

[gnoriac]

but at the request of his barrister the murder charge was not put to him.

What does that actually mean?

 

[claphamboy]

Any way to find out whether the defendant is on remand or bailed, DB?

Yep, read the bloody report in the link provided by lizzieloo.

Peter Lownds, defending, explained there
was to be ‘an application to dismiss’ the
murder charge so the case was adjourned
and Griffiths was granted conditional bail.

 

[detective-boy]

What does that actually mean?

At a pleas and directions hearing, the charge is actually put to the defendant and they are required to plead guilty or not guilty. Unless they are going to plead guilty, there is nothing in that for anyone really and so sometimes the defence will indicate that it's going to be a not guilty and so it's not worth bothering. They have to justify this as there are sentencing rules which provide discounts for "pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity" and so they won't always get their way. In a case like this, where there is clearly a legal argument to be had about whether there should be a murder charge proveeded with, they can successfuly argue that it is not right for the defendant to be put in the positon of entering a plea yet and so it is not unusual for the charges not to be put.

Reading between the lines, I would not be surprised to find that if the murder charge evetually goes (and I would not be surprised to see that happen from what has been reported), he may well plead guilty to manslaughter.

 

[Spymaster]

Yep, read the bloody report in the link provided by lizzieloo.

Cheers ........ cock ring!

 

[likesfish]

apart from our two love birds on urban.
there was a high bozon count around the whole thing (bozon being the sub atomic particle of stupidity)

hunt sabs thinking they could do aerial surveillance in about the most identifiable
type of aircraft possible.
CAA police not telling them err no.
hunt driver going to confront the pilot wtf getting out and marching towards prop
pilot not seeing or trying to maneuver past said driver

 

[Azrael]

Reading between the lines, I would not be surprised to find that if the murder charge evetually goes (and I would not be surprised to see that happen from what has been reported), he may well plead guilty to manslaughter.

How much of this is worked out with the defence? So far as I'm aware we're not supposed to have plea bargaining in English law, but murder seems to become manslaughter quite regularly.

 

[detective-boy]

How much of this is worked out with the defence? So far as I'm aware we're not supposed to have plea bargaining in English law, but murder seems to become manslaughter quite regularly.

Lots, especally in homicide cases where it almost always the case that murder is the starting charge (because the only difference is what is in the offenders head at the time usually, and the facts of what actually happened rarely provide much of a clue about that and frequently the offender has not explained themselves to the police, remaining silent in interview, fully or in part) even in cases where the prosecution think mansluaghter is the most likely outcome.

It's not plea bargaining as such, but the prosecution (and ultimately the Court who have to sanction a proposed course of action even if defence and prosection agree) will make a judgement on whether pleas offered (and qute often the facts agreed as the basis for those pleas) properly reflect the criminality of what happened.

Lots of things are taken into account - the fact that peas save witnesses the stress of giving evidence; how strong the evidence is and if there is a significant chance that a trial could result in a total acquittal (in one of my jobs manslaughter was offered and I wanted to accept it, counsel (Sir Alan Green, later to become a disgraced DPP) disagreed and we tried for murder ... and the jury acquitted altogether); likely sentences for the offence and facts suggested (and often the judge will give an indication of what they have in mind too).

The key thing is, though, that the prosecution and Court must agree that the proposed course of action is fair and just (to all parties) and properly reflects what actually happened.

 

[Spymaster]

(in one of my jobs manslaughter was offered and I wanted to accept it, counsel (Sir Alan Green, later to become a disgraced DPP) disagreed and we tried for murder ... and the jury acquitted altogether);

In that case couldn't the jury have found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter?

 

[claphamboy]

In that case couldn't the jury have found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter?

I think they have that option, but I think DB is saying they found not quilty on both murder and manslaughter in this case.

 

[laptop]

In that case couldn't the jury have found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter?

They could. But as DB says, they didn't.

There's always the possibility that a jury decides a murder charge is over the top and throws everything out in annyoyance.

 

[Spymaster]

So can a jury always downgrade murder to manslaughter at their discretion?

I thought the judge had to give them the option at his discretion.

 

[laptop]

So can a jury always downgrade murder to manslaughter at their discretion?

I thought the judge had to give them the option at his discretion.

Don't know, but the prosecution can always charge both murder and manslaughter - and I presumed from DB's account that this happened there.

E2A: technically, I guess the court has to agree to the prosecution charging both. And I'm talking about the case where the court accepts that a murder charge is appropriate (as it did in DB's story).

 

[Lakina]

So can a jury always downgrade murder to manslaughter at their discretion?

I thought the judge had to give them the option at his discretion.

Jury can't change the indictment.

At the start of the trial, the judge can order a defective indictment to be amended from murder to manslaughter, but only if it is clearly defective.

 

[detective-boy]

Don't know, but the prosecution can always charge both murder and manslaughter - and I presumed from DB's account that this happened there.

The prosecution wouldn't have to charge / indict (when a case goes to Crown Court the charges are written into what is referred to as the indictment ... but it's just the Crown Court name for the charge sheet!) both.

There are some charges / counts in an indictment which automatically allow a jury to convict of a lesser offence if they see fit ... and murder is one of them. On a count of murder a jury can always bring in a "not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter" verdict unless the ludge has pspecifically removed the option from them as a matter of law.

There would, therefore, be no need for an indictment to charge both murder and manslaughter for the same incident (and, in fact, the inictment would be deemed defective ("bad for duplicity") if it did).

This does not apply to many offences and in other cases the prosecution would have to charge both if they were not sure which the jury would convict of and wanted to leave both open to them.

As a general rule though, Courts do not like the prosecution turning up and saying "Here's a load of things you may decide the defendant has done - pick one or two as you like!" and they say to prosecutors things like "I'm afraid, Mr Trumpington-Smythe that you're going have to decide which horse you're going to ride today!"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/drafting_the_indictment/#Alternatives for some bedtime reading ...

 

[laptop]

<information>

Ta!

("bad for duplicity")

 

[Spymaster]

On a count of murder a jury can always bring in a "not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter" verdict unless the ludge has pspecifically removed the option from them as a matter of law.

Ok, I had this the wrong way round, but why would he do that?

 

[detective-boy]

Ok, I had this the wrong way round, but why would he do that?

There could be many reasons - usually it would be because the judge felt the evidence was "all or nothing" - if they couldn;t agree on murder then there would be some evidential issue that one of the requisite bits for manslaughter must be missing too.

I think a judge can also ask a jury to consider murder first and then, if after a while they haven't been able to agree, release the manslaughter alternative to them to see if they can agree on that (before then releasing a majority verdit option to them to see if a majority can be achieved on either).

 

[Spymaster]

Cheers.

 

[cantsin]

<snip>

Only just seen this. Posting up PMs is bannable. 7 days. Watch your step when you come back.

 

[Spymaster]

 

[Jonti]

What do you call a deer with no eyes?

 

[Jonti]

Oh, this

Looks like the sabs may well not be tried for murder. That's all.

We'll see.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What do you call a deer with no eyes?

A blind date?

 

[Edie]

What do you call a deer with no eyes?

No i-dea?

 

[Cobbles]

No i-dea?

What do you call a deer with no eyes and 4 broken legs?

 

[claphamboy]

still no i-dea