Manslaughter conviction

[Jaggy Bunnet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4721355.stm

I struggle to understand this verdict. He pled not guilty to killing her at all and no body has ever been found.

The jury has convicted of manslaughter and according to the report:

"The judge said despite there being no evidence or explanation as to what happened to Mrs Morton, there had been signs her husband was in a state of emotional turmoil at the time.

"I am sure it was a sudden flare-up brought about by a disagreement about schooling about which you felt strongly." "

If there is no evidence or explanation of what happened, how can the judge be "sure" of the circumstances surrounding her death?

I have a horrible feeling that the jury thought he was guilty but weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt, so chose to convict of manslaughter as they were unwilling to let him walk free.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the legal system could help me understand.

 

[Blue Bubble]

Agreed. This sounds like the worst aspect of English law, namely that there is no "not proven" verdict.

Scots law, on the other hand, does.

 

[Mojo]

Agreed. This sounds like the worst aspect of English law, namely that there is no "not proven" verdict.

Scots law, on the other hand, does.

AKA "that b*****d verdict." The problem with it is that it could be (and I suspect often is) taken to mean "we think you did it but there's not enough evidence to convict," with the obvious implications for vigilantism etc.

 

[Mojo]

I have a horrible feeling that the jury thought he was guilty but weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt, so chose to convict of manslaughter as they were unwilling to let him walk free.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the legal system could help me understand.

He was convicted of manslaughter because the jury decided that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that he killed her, but had not proved that he had the intent to kill necessary for a murder conviction. Without seeing all the evidence presented, it's impossible to say whether the jury's verdict was correct.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

AKA "that b*****d verdict." The problem with it is that it could be (and I suspect often is) taken to mean "we think you did it but there's not enough evidence to convict," with the obvious implications for vigilantism etc.

Problem is not the "not proven" verdict, it is the other two. The juries job is NOT to decide if someone is guilty or not guilty, it is to decide if the case against them is proven or not.

It is the guilty / not guilty options that should be abolished, rather than not proven.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Re: Re: Manslaughter conviction

He was convicted of manslaughter because the jury decided that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that he killed her, but had not proved that he had the intent to kill necessary for a murder conviction. Without seeing all the evidence presented, it's impossible to say whether the jury's verdict was correct.

You may well be correct and I hope you are. The judge's comments just struck me as bizarre - effectively he is stating that he is "sure" of something while accepting there is no evidence at all to support this.

 

[Mojo]

Re: Re: Re: Manslaughter conviction

You may well be correct and I hope you are. The judge's comments just struck me as bizarre - effectively he is stating that he is "sure" of something while accepting there is no evidence at all to support this.

The judge is just going along with the jury's finding of the facts - as he has to. If the defendant had pleaded guilty he could have taken that into account when deciding the sentence. But he didn't. That's just how the law works in this country. It's not the fault of the judge or the jury; it's just how we do things here.

 

[Mojo]

Problem is not the "not proven" verdict, it is the other two. The juries job is NOT to decide if someone is guilty or not guilty, it is to decide if the case against them is proven or not.

It is the guilty / not guilty options that should be abolished, rather than not proven.

The jury, in English law, is just there to decide the facts. If the prosecution can prove their case, OK, bang the defendant up.

But if they can't prove that the defendant is guilty, let him go. That's the safeguard that you or I have against wrongful conviction for something we haven't done: the prosecution has to prove their case.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Manslaughter conviction

The judge is just going along with the jury's finding of the facts - as he has to. If the defendant had pleaded guilty he could have taken that into account when deciding the sentence. But he didn't. That's just how the law works in this country. It's not the fault of the judge or the jury; it's just how we do things here.

That's way different here in the US. A judge can set aside a juries verdict in favor of a defendant if he decides there wasn't enough evidence for the jury to reach the verdict it did. The judge couldn't, however, find a defendant guilty if the jury decided not guilty.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The jury, in English law, is just there to decide the facts. If the prosecution can prove their case, OK, bang the defendant up.

But if they can't prove that the defendant is guilty, let him go. That's the safeguard that you or I have against wrongful conviction for something we haven't done: the prosecution has to prove their case.

Precisely. So why not have verdicts that reflect that? I agree that in Scotland not proven is sometimes used when the jury don't want to return a verdict of not guilty as they believe the defendant to be guilty but that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

My concern would be what happens in similar circumstances in a system where the options are only guilty/not guilty?

 

[richardm]

Well, if the case wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt then surely "not guilty" should be the correct verdict, and this should be drummed into the jury before they go off for a ponder.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well, if the case wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt then surely "not guilty" should be the correct verdict, and this should be drummed into the jury before they go off for a ponder.

Undoubtedly under the current system. However I think some people think that by saying not guilty they are stating that the person did not commit the crime. In cases where they believe the accused is guilty but that there is not the evidence to prove it, then there appears to be an unwillingness to return a "not guilty" verdict.

That is why I would prefer verdicts of proven and not proven.

 

[Mojo]

Originally posted by richardm
Well, if the case wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt then surely "not guilty" should be the correct verdict, and this should be drummed into the jury before they go off for a ponder.

The judge has to give directions to the jury on precisely this sort of thing in his or her summing up.

As an example, here are the Judicial studies Board's (the body responsible for the training of judges) specimen directions for judges to give to juries regarding the burden and standard of proof required for a conviction.

How does the prosecution succeed in proving the defendant's guilt? The answer is - by making you sure of it. Nothing less than that will do. If after considering all the evidence you are sure that the defendant is guilty, you must return a verdict of 'Guilty'. If you are not sure, your verdict must be 'Not Guilty'.

 

[Mojo]

That is why I would prefer verdicts of proven and not proven.

That is precisely what the verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilty" mean in English law.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That is precisely what the verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilty" mean in English law.

Agreed. However I am not convinced that they are perceived that way by jurors.

Otherwise why is there a stigma attached to a "not proven" verdict in Scotland? Legally it means exactly the same as "not guilty".

 

[Mojo]

Otherwise why is there a stigma attached to a "not proven" verdict in Scotland? Legally it means exactly the same as "not guilty".

The stigma results from the perception that it means "we think you did it but we can't prove it," otherwise why not just say "not guilty." As the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal just as much as a "not guilty" verdict is, it is unnecessary to have the third possible verdict.

Incidentally, according to the note about two-thirds of the way down this page it seems that at one time Scottish law actually did use proven and not proven as the two possible verdicts. the "not guilty" verdict was introduced in the 18th century.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The stigma results from the perception that it means "we think you did it but we can't prove it," otherwise why not just say "not guilty." As the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal just as much as a "not guilty" verdict is, it is unnecessary to have the third possible verdict.

Incidentally, according to the note about two-thirds of the way down this page it seems that at one time Scottish law actually did use proven and not proven as the two possible verdicts. the "not guilty" verdict was introduced in the 18th century.

Precisely. I think this demonstrates that the jurors do not understand what a not guilty verdict means. If they did then they should be perfectly happy to use "not proven" and "not guilty" completely interchangeably as they have exactly the same legal meaning.

The fact that they perceive a difference means that they are not being well enough briefed. If the problem of an inadequate briefing also applies to the English system where "not proven" is not an option, this could lead to problems where a jury are unwilling to return a "not guilty" verdict (because they believe they are guilty but it hasn't been proved). Might mean more juries unable to reach a verdict.

Possibly if we asked them to deliver a verdict that actually reflected their role in the trial, to decide whether or not the charge was proven or not, it would help address this issue.

I did know that we used to have proven and not proven. I might have a quick google to see why we added not guilty.

 

[Mojo]

Precisely. I think this demonstrates that the jurors do not understand what a not guilty verdict means. If they did then they should be perfectly happy to use "not proven" and "not guilty" completely interchangeably as they have exactly the same legal meaning.

The fact that they perceive a difference means that they are not being well enough briefed. If the problem of an inadequate briefing also applies to the English system where "not proven" is not an option, this could lead to problems where a jury are unwilling to return a "not guilty" verdict (because they believe they are guilty but it hasn't been proved). Might mean more juries unable to reach a verdict.

If a judge didn't give the jury adequate direction on the burden and standard of proof required, and this lead to a conviction because the jury didn't want to gave a "not guilty" verdict for this sort of reason, the defence would have good grounds for appeal. In fact, they would have grounds for appeal if there was any sort of inadequacy in the judge's summing up.

When I said that the perception of the "not proven" verdict was what led to the stigma attached to it, I was considering the perception of the general public rather than the jury's perception.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If a judge didn't give the jury adequate direction on the burden and standard of proof required, and this lead to a conviction because the jury didn't want to gave a "not guilty" verdict for this sort of reason, the defence would have good grounds for appeal. In fact, they would have grounds for appeal if there was any sort of inadequacy in the judge's summing up.

When I said that the perception of the "not proven" verdict was what led to the stigma attached to it, I was considering the perception of the general public rather than the jury's perception.

But jurors are drawn from the general public.

 

[Mojo]

But jurors are drawn from the general public.

However, by the time they retire to consider their verdict they will have had the possible verdicts and the burden of proof required explained to them by the judge.