UK - Logan Mwangi, 5, found dead in Wales River, Bridgend, 31 July 2021 *arrests, inc. minor*

[LucyRocket]

With what had been reported earlier about what neighbours had seen and heard, I had thought there might be a possibility mum wasn't involved in the immediate events. 4:45am man seen by the river, 5:30 arguing heard, including a child's voice (could have been mum being made aware Logan was missing and the panic started), with her shouting about the back door being open a while later. But now that they've charged her with murder, either that isn't the case, OR perhaps that is how it happened that morning, but the 14 year old, having been charged with murder himself, is now reporting of physical abuse the mother inflicted on Logan which could have caused him previous injuries with long term (maybe even 48 hours) consequences which may have contributed to his death. I think the more likely scenario is that she was wholly involved that morning, otherwise it would have been very difficult to obtain the evidence to charge with PCOJ so quickly.


However, in the Wayne Couzens case, his wife was arrested on suspicion of PCOJ, but I didn't see anything at all in the evidence presented that indicated the grounds on which that arrest was made.

I think in the case of a failure to act, as in not getting emergency help after the fact, manslaughter would have been a more likely charge, although there is a case for it to be murder in that instance as she's the person with primary responsibility for his care.

All just MOO and my own musings.

 

[elliefant]

Murder doesn’t have to be intent to kill, it can be intent to cause “serious harm” or GBH - which then results in death. I suspected the 3 charged probably intended to cause varying degrees of harm but we shall see.

This bit also looks relevant (thanks for link @Moll ) to me and my very non-expert eye


Charging murder or manslaughter in group assaults without a weapon

[…]

1. If there is sufficient evidence that one of the assailants committed murder, consider, in relation to each D who participated in the incident the following questions:
   1. Murder
      • Was D the killer who acted with intent to kill or do GBH? or
      • Did D intend to encourage or assist the intentional infliction of serious bodily harm? or
      • Did D conditionally intend to encourage or assist the intentional infliction of serious bodily harm, if the occasion arose?
      If so, the appropriate charge is murder.
   2. Manslaughter
      • Did D intend to encourage or assist only the infliction of some harm (falling short of serious bodily harm)? or
      • Did D conditionally intend to encourage or assist only the infliction of some harm, if the occasion arose? or
      • Did D participate by encouragement or assistance in any other unlawful act which all sober and reasonable persons would realise carried the risk of some harm (not necessarily serious) to another?
      If so, the appropriate charge is manslaughter.

Lesser or alternative offences may also be charged.

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Moll]

...
SBM

I think in the case of a failure to act, as in not getting emergency help after the fact, manslaughter would have been a more likely charge, although there is a case for it to be murder in that instance as she's the person with primary responsibility for his care.

All just MOO and my own musings.

But I think the CPS's charging guidelines rule that out as murder.

 

[JuicyLucy]

Joint enterprise maybe?

I watched a programme about Sophie Lancaster last night (she and boyfriend Rob were attacked, Rob survived). The police detective explained that they were able to determine that all 5 boys attacked Rob. Because Sophie died everybody closed ranks in the face of a more serious murder charge and police could not determine who of the 5 attacked Sophie. So they were able to charge them all with murder under joint enterprise. (In the end they changed it due to a confession)

I wondered about joint enterprise, but on that basis I would have thought the charges could have been made back in August, whereas it seems to me that the police investigation has uncovered facts that were not known at that time that have led to these extra charges now. At a guess, that would be forensic evidence, a new witness coming forward, or the defendants turning on each other. But I really am only guessing. I feel it would be more than just a failure to call an ambulance/report the crime though.

JMO

 

[Cherwell]

Any or all of the defendants could be lying to incriminate the other(s). Highly likely IMO.

 

[ChloLo]

Not a qualified lawyer. But currently doing an intro to law course and familiar with CPS guidance etc.

• Murder has premeditation and intent, to harm or cause death.
• Manslaughter, accidental.
• Manslaughter by gross negligence, didn’t do something they should have done and that failure to act has resulted in death.
• Causing or allowing the death of a child, should have protected the child from another who was a known risk to the child.

Hope that helps. I can pull links over if needed.

 

[ChloLo]

Joint enterprise is where ‘D’ either assists in the attack regardless of knowing the principle may cause serious harm. Or they had knowledge that the principle may cause serious harm and a shared common intent.
As per R v Jogee 2016

 

[Tortoise]

Not a qualified lawyer. But currently doing an intro to law course and familiar with CPS guidance etc.

• Murder has premeditation and intent, to harm or cause death.
• Manslaughter, accidental.
• Manslaughter by gross negligence, didn’t do something they should have done and that failure to act has resulted in death.
• Causing or allowing the death of a child, should have protected the child from another who was a known risk to the child.

Hope that helps. I can pull links over if needed.

I'm not sure premeditation has to be proved for murder.

 

[LucyRocket]

But I think the CPS's charging guidelines rule that out as murder.

Yes, they do. According to their guidelines that would be a charge of manslaughter, as I said.

But on my own 'musings', I recognised that, even if someone held a gun to my head and said it's you or your child, I wouldn't hesitate in my response. To let him be killed, in my mind, is paramount to murder. Not in legal terms, but morally as a mother with maternal instinct

 

[elliefant]

Murder

Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

• Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
• unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
• any reasonable creature (human being);
• in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
• under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
• with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

Intent
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[LucyRocket]

I wondered about joint enterprise, but on that basis I would have thought the charges could have been made back in August, whereas it seems to me that the police investigation has uncovered facts that were not known at that time that have led to these extra charges now. At a guess, that would be forensic evidence, a new witness coming forward, or the defendants turning on each other. But I really am only guessing. I feel it would be more than just a failure to call an ambulance/report the crime though.

JMO

Two of my opinions on this;

Joint enterprise is more usually used when a third party is involved in commission of a crime but has no direct responsibility. The fact that the mother is the sole person with parental responsibility in this domestic situation would make her more the subject of a manslaughter charge, I think.

Secondly, the fact that she has been charged with murder the day after the youth is significant timing. As you say, either further evidence, or a disclosure.

No specific reason for it, just going on my thoughts about the obvious;

I think the youth has spoken. Either to a professional involved in his care, or to another young person in the same care facility who has reported what he's said. This information would lead to him being charged, and her swiftly afterwards.

IMO

 

[LucyRocket]

Any or all of the defendants could be lying to incriminate the other(s). Highly likely IMO.

Especially when one of them is a child, who has been removed from the adults involved

 

[ChloLo]

Premeditation doesn’t need to be proved, as it can be in the split seconds before the act.

 

[ChloLo]

Would the charges not have been announced as joint enterprise if that was the case? Like in Bernadette’s case?

 

[Seattle1]

Mum appears in court charged with murder of five-year-old

10/22/2021

The mother of five-year-old Logan Mwangi, who was found dead in a river, has appeared in court.

Angharad Williamson was charged with her son's murder on Thursday evening.

Wearing a black shirt, the 30-year-old appeared at Cardiff Magistrates Court on Friday, October 22, via video link. She only spoke to confirm her identity during the short hearing.

[.]

Following the brief hearing at Cardiff Magistrates' Court, Williamson, of Sarn, Bridgend, was remanded into custody. She will reappear at Cardiff Crown Court on Monday, October 25 for a preliminary hearing.

 

[Moll]

Yes, they do. According to their guidelines that would be a charge of manslaughter, as I said.

But on my own 'musings', I recognised that, even if someone held a gun to my head and said it's you or your child, I wouldn't hesitate in my response. To let him be killed, in my mind, is paramount to murder. Not in legal terms, but morally as a mother with maternal instinct

I do understand that and I am only thinking of what the charges imply about the evidence they've got.

Edited to add:
And if we're talking about 'morally', may I say that you don't even have to be a mother to think it's abominable to let a child be killed. I have no children, but had anyone held a gun to my head when my nephews were small and said that, I wouldn't have hesitated either. (They're six-footers now so can probably look after themselves!) And more than that - ANY child.

 

[Cherwell]

But on my own 'musings', I recognised that, even if someone held a gun to my head and said it's you or your child, I wouldn't hesitate in my response. To let him be killed, in my mind, is paramount to murder. Not in legal terms, but morally as a mother with maternal instinct

And if we're talking about 'morally', may I say that you don't even have to be a mother to think it's abominable to let a child be killed. I have no children, but had anyone held a gun to my head when my nephews were small and said that, I wouldn't have hesitated either. (They're six-footers now so can probably look after themselves!) And more than that - ANY child.

I don't think anyone can be sure what they would do in such an extreme situation. I don't have any children either and I'm not close to any, so I doubt I would sacrifice my life for a child. I suspect my self-preservation instinct is too strong.

 

[Dotta]

I don't think anyone can be sure what they would do in such an extreme situation. I don't have any children either and I'm not close to any, so I doubt I would sacrifice my life for a child. I suspect my self-preservation instinct is too strong.

We dont really know how we would behave until we are tested.
But all of us hope we would behave like decent human beings in the time of trial.

 

[Kitkat28]

I don’t think there’s any great mystery to the fact they’ve all been charged with murder. Presumably they all participated equally in killing poor little Logan.

It used to be if they couldn’t prove who struck the “fatal blow” so to speak, then both or all parties got away with it. Thankfully this doesn’t seem to be the case any more.

 

[Cherwell]

We dont really know how we would behave until we are tested.
But all of us hope we would behave like decent human beings in the time of trial.

Indeed, but sacrificing your life for someone else's is a bit more than giving up your seat on the bus.
I've been honest - I don't think I would.