Found Deceased UK - Sarah Everard, 33, London - Clapham Common area, 3 March 2021 *Arrests* #14

[infinit]

Absolutely right, but I think the difference lies in the outcome options within law. Kidnap someone, even while not of sound mind, can only be a guilty of kidnap outcome. Rape someone, even when not of sound mind, can only be a guilty of rape outcome. To have evidence of psychological considerations would only affect sentencing recommendations, such as in what facility the sentence is served, for those two crimes. Murder is quite different as there is another possible outcome in that yes, you caused someone's death, but due to the evidence of psychological considerations one CAN be found guilty of manslaughter as opposed to murder.

I think the not guilty by reason of insanity defence can be applied for any criminal charge: Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964

This is what it says in regards to murder specifically and diminished responsibility:
"
Evidence by prosecution of insanity or diminished responsibility

Where on a trial for murder the accused contends—

(a)that at the time of the alleged offence he was insane so as not to be responsible according to law for his actions; or

(b)that at that time he was suffering from such abnormality of mind as is specified in subsection (1) of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (diminished responsibility),

the court shall allow the prosecution to adduce or elicit evidence tending to prove the other of those contentions, and may give directions as to the stage of the proceedings at which the prosecution may adduce such evidence."

But I am not a lawyer.

 

[MsBetsy]

I think the not guilty by reason of insanity defence can be applied for any criminal charge: Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964

This is what it says in regards to murder specifically and diminished responsibility:
"
Evidence by prosecution of insanity or diminished responsibility

Where on a trial for murder the accused contends—

(a)that at the time of the alleged offence he was insane so as not to be responsible according to law for his actions; or

(b)that at that time he was suffering from such abnormality of mind as is specified in subsection (1) of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (diminished responsibility),

the court shall allow the prosecution to adduce or elicit evidence tending to prove the other of those contentions, and may give directions as to the stage of the proceedings at which the prosecution may adduce such evidence."

But I am not a lawyer.

That he hid the body in an attempt to cover up his actions points to him being of sound mind when he committed the crime. Imo

 

[Megnut]

IMO he hadn't plead guilty to murder simply because he hasn't yet been charged with it. And it appears they're waiting on charging while deciding WHICH murder charge.

Anybody know what sentencing looks like on the charges he has plead guilty on? Sentencing guidelines, that is.

Such depravity...

The damage one sick (depraved) person can inflict on another, it's hard to grasp.

All Sarah wanted to do was walk home...

Heartbreaking this could happen...

JMO

 

[annpats]

I wonder if with a murder case, psychological evaluation is a requirement.
It can help by enabling the direction the trial will take, either diminished responsibility, judge and jury have to consider and factor that in.
Or of he's completely sane, the trial that begin at normal, with no extenuating circumstances.
Beat to get it straight from the beginning.

 

[Pokerface87]

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned here since the thread reopened but a cause of death has now been identified.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/sarah-everard-cause-death-strangulation-20717016.amp

 

[Tortoise]

IMO he hadn't plead guilty to murder simply because he hasn't yet been charged with it. And it appears they're waiting on charging while deciding WHICH murder charge.

Anybody know what sentencing looks like on the charges he has plead guilty on? Sentencing guidelines, that is.

Such depravity...

The damage one sick (depraved) person can inflict on another, it's hard to grasp.

All Sarah wanted to do was walk home...

Heartbreaking this could happen...

JMO

He was charged with murder in March. Sarah Everard: Wayne Couzens appears in court charged with murder

There isn't more than one type of murder charge, at least not that I've heard of before.

 

[Alethea]

Is it possible that he didn't plead to murder because his position is he did not intend to kill her? I'm not sure if they have felony murder in the UK like they do in the US. Felony murder means you can be charged with murder if someone dies during the commission of a felony, even if you did not intend the death.

 

[Tortoise]

Is it possible that he didn't plead to murder because his position is he did not intend to kill her? I'm not sure if they have felony murder in the UK like they do in the US. Felony murder means you can be charged with murder if someone dies during the commission of a felony, even if you did not intend the death.

They're giving him a psychiatric evaluation so it's more likely that the postponement of plea is to do with the defence making sure he doesn't (or does) qualify for a plea of reduced culpability, aka diminished responsibility, ie manslaughter, in my opinion.

 

[pumpkinn]

Sarah Everard: Woman arrested in March faces no action Sarah Everard: Woman arrested in March faces no action

 

[thoughts101]

Generally for murder, you have to actually foresee the possibility of death - so you must have known

The reasonable person standard relates to negligence/manslaughter

But we don't know the basis for the defence yet. Is he claiming he killed her by accident? Or are they saying he lacked the mental competency....

You are generally right about these standards re civil and criminal law, but to add the mental component for murder includes the intention to either kill or cause grevious bodily harm (GBH), and there must be clear evidence of intention not only mere foreseeability.

 

[annpats]

Very glad to see this thread back!

This thread has always been here, but this thread was supposed to be NO DISCUSSION, as written in the title! It was meant for just for posting media links only.

The other Sarah Everard thread was deleted, due to sub-judice restrictions.

But, it's up to the moderators to allow it to run, delete or just delete everyone comments.

 

[Sarahlou]

This thread has always been here, but this thread was supposed to be NO DISCUSSION, as written in the title! It was meant for just for posting media links only.

The other Sarah Everard thread was deleted, due to sub-judice restrictions.

But, it's up to the moderators to allow it to run, delete or just delete everyone comments.

This isn't the media thread. It's one of the original discussion threads they opened up again.

 

[thoughts101]

What I am saying is that the standard for murder by indirect intention is a subjective test not objective. So the accused must have known the risk of death - we infer it, based on the circumstances.

What a reasonable person would have known is an objective test, and is effectively the standard for negligence. So you didn't foresee death but you should have.

Many countries have codified parts of these rules. So where you inflict GBH and are reckless about whether death could ensue, you are guilty of murder.

Hmm. It is a puzzling question if the accused left her and she died "indirectly". He must have intended to kill or cause GBH in order to have the intention to murder. I am not sure about knowing the risks of murder or such serious harm is sufficient to form intention. I reckon that if he was reckless to it then it might tend towards manslaughter. Of course, the manner and why of a death would weigh heavily during sentencing and leaving your victim to die I am sure could aggravate a crime.

 

[annpats]

This isn't the media thread. It's one of the original discussion threads they opened up again.

Wow!! That's great. I didn't know that. Must have just happened today?

 

[SBops]

Hmm. It is a puzzling question if the accused left her and she died "indirectly". He must have intended to kill or cause GBH in order to have the intention to murder. I am not sure about knowing the risks of murder or such serious harm is sufficient to form intention. I reckon that if he was reckless to it then it might tend towards manslaughter. Of course, the manner and why of a death would weigh heavily during sentencing and leaving your victim to die I am sure could aggravate a crime.

Well that is all beside the point because she died of strangulation.

 

[SBops]

Wow!! That's great. I didn't know that. Must have just happened today?

It happened right after he pleaded guilty.

 

[thoughts101]

Is it possible that he didn't plead to murder because his position is he did not intend to kill her? I'm not sure if they have felony murder in the UK like they do in the US. Felony murder means you can be charged with murder if someone dies during the commission of a felony, even if you did not intend the death.

There is no such crime under English law as far as I am aware - in England you would be facing a murder charge alongside your other criminal charges for the other crimes. These would likely be heard together and together could aggravate your offences. There are no felonies under English law - here, offences are either summary or indictable, is all.

 

[thoughts101]

Well that is all beside the point because she died of strangulation.

Indeed. It was more of a general legal point linked to earlier discussion. Thank you for bringing it back to the facts!

 

[tedtink]

Well that is all beside the point because she died of strangulation.

"Compression of the neck" actually, it hasn't been confirmed SE was actually 'strangled', as in hands/ or rope around throat for that matter.

 

[Becky53]

A woman who was arrested in connection with the disappearance and death of Sarah Everard faces no further action, the Met Police has said.

Sarah Everard: Woman arrested in March faces no action