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

[Kelly C]

"Compression of the neck" actually, it hasn't been confirmed SE was 'strangled' or not.

That’s a more acceptable way of saying strangulation. It’s digestible terminology.

In psychiatry we say someone “ended their life” rather than “committed suicide” It all means the same.

But yes, I guess the argument in this could be that he didn’t strangle her but compressed her neck in some way. However you word it, the guy is a monster and is totally responsible.

JMO

 

[tedtink]

But yes, I guess the argument in this could be that he didn’t strangle her but compressed her neck in some way.

Not arguing.
Just keeping an open mind on the method until further details are released.

 

[jslk]

This is all so horrifying but I hope the truth will win the day and justice can be served for this poor innocent woman.

 

[elliefant]

I found this official gov site useful during the Libby Squire case and it may answer some of the things being discussed here.

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

Here’s what it says re intent, for murder charges:

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.

(There are also sections in it re diminished responsibility, manslaughter, sentencing guidelines etc.)

 

[Nikynoo]

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

Yes, this and also the (alledged) pre-planning involved.

 

[Winterbells]

Cop admits kidnap and rape of Sarah Everard and accepts responsibility for death

I’m interested in the ‘kidnapping by force or fraud’ charge. I wonder what kind of fraud/pretence he may have used to gain control over Sarah?

 

[Skigh]

Cop admits kidnap and rape of Sarah Everard and accepts responsibility for death

I’m interested in the ‘kidnapping by force or fraud’ charge. I wonder what kind of fraud/pretence he may have used to gain control over Sarah?

He could have used his police i.d to stop her and tell her the path ahead was closed so she had to walk behind the flats. Or he stopped her on other false pretensions.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Yep

He is charged but not arraigned.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

At this point I am assuming the defence has been granted extra time in good faith because the Crown thinks they might end up pleading guilty to murder.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

That is exactly what i have posted multiple times now

1. Direct intention - you intend to kill the victim

2. Indirect intention - you commit some other unlawful act (like GBH), and MUST HAVE FORESEEN that death was a real possibility.

Mere foreseeability on an objective standard, is not sufficient for murder. Rather then standard of intention is subjective, ie. you did actually foresee it.

So in a classic example, if you hit someone over the head with a bottle in a bar room fight and they die, that will likely be murder, because you must have foreseen death was a likely result.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Merely "leaving" would not be murder - there is generally a need to cause a bodily injury of GBH - for comparison here is how it is defined in NZ

if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:

This is what I mean about these situations being codified. If you cause a bodily injury likely to cause death, then that will quality as indirect intention - the law has evolved to the point where if you intentionally cause a serious injury to someone, intention to kill will be inferred, because you must have known death could result.

The big case on this recently was Pistorius, where shooting at an "intruder" was murder, because he must have known death might well result, but proceeded anyway

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Woman arrested in Sarah Everard murder investigation faces no further charges

 

[Winterbells]

He could have used his police i.d to stop her and tell her the path ahead was closed so she had to walk behind the flats. Or he stopped her on other false pretensions.

It does sound like that, I agree. Although, I've just discovered that those terms 'force or fraud' are part of the standard legal definition of 'kidnapping':

"The current definition is that kidnapping is an attack on or infringement of personal liberty, consisting of the taking or carrying away of one person by another, by force or fraud, without the consent of the person taken or carried away, and without lawful excuse".
Simplification of the Criminal Law: Kidnapping and Related Offences | Law Commission

I'm trying to work out the difference between 'kidnap' and 'abduction' because the charge of kidnapping seems very specific. Pawel Relowicz, for example, was arrested for the 'abduction' of Libby Squire, not for her 'kidnapping'. In other words, Relowicz wasn't accused of forcing Libby into his car, nor of pretending to be, for example, a police officer or taxi driver. His defence (which didn't work) for having Libby in his car was that he was offering 'help', which she accepted.

The fact that WC is accused of kidnapping Sarah, suggests to me that somehow the police know how he got her into his car (ie. force) and/or what false pretence he used (i.e. his police badge). And that makes me wonder how they know? Is there cctv footage, for example, of the forcing or showing of badge? or has he confessed to how he got her into his car perhaps?

There's more on the subject here: Kidnap And False Imprisonment - Spartans Law
Kidnapping and false imprisonment involve the unlawful and intentional or reckless detention of a victim against his or her will. Often the crime takes place with the purpose of committing another offence, such as assault. The offence of kidnapping involves four elements:

1. A person is taken away by another person.
2. The person being taken is taken away by force or fraud (an example of fraud might be lying about who you are or where you are taking the person).
3. The person being taken does not consent to being taken.
4. You have no lawful excuse to take that person. This means that for example, a police officer arresting someone who did not want to be arrested would not be guilty of kidnapping if the arrest was legal.
   
   

 

[Skigh]

It does sound like that, I agree. Although, I've just discovered that those terms 'force or fraud' are part of the standard legal definition of 'kidnapping':

"The current definition is that kidnapping is an attack on or infringement of personal liberty, consisting of the taking or carrying away of one person by another, by force or fraud, without the consent of the person taken or carried away, and without lawful excuse".
Simplification of the Criminal Law: Kidnapping and Related Offences | Law Commission

I'm trying to work out the difference between 'kidnap' and 'abduction' because the charge of kidnapping seems very specific. Pawel Relowicz, for example, was arrested for the 'abduction' of Libby Squire, not for her 'kidnapping'. In other words, Relowicz wasn't accused of forcing Libby into his car, nor of pretending to be, for example, a police officer or taxi driver. His defence (which didn't work) for having Libby in his car was that he was offering 'help', which she accepted.

The fact that WC is accused of kidnapping Sarah, suggests to me that somehow the police know how he got her into his car (ie. force) and/or what false pretence he used (i.e. his police badge). And that makes me wonder how they know? Is there cctv footage, for example, of the forcing or showing of badge? or has he confessed to how he got her into his car perhaps?

There's more on the subject here: Kidnap And False Imprisonment - Spartans Law
Kidnapping and false imprisonment involve the unlawful and intentional or reckless detention of a victim against his or her will. Often the crime takes place with the purpose of committing another offence, such as assault. The offence of kidnapping involves four elements:

1. A person is taken away by another person.
2. The person being taken is taken away by force or fraud (an example of fraud might be lying about who you are or where you are taking the person).
3. The person being taken does not consent to being taken.
4. You have no lawful excuse to take that person. This means that for example, a police officer arresting someone who did not want to be arrested would not be guilty of kidnapping if the arrest was legal.
   

I think they could have some of the kidnap on cctv.

 

[Winterbells]

I think they could have some of the kidnap on cctv.

Yep, I wonder too.

 

[MsBetsy]

I think they could have some of the kidnap on cctv.

Yes, apparently they do. Surveillance footage shows them both in the vicinity of his car with both doors open. The only reasonable conclusion was that she entered the car. Either way it would be kidnapping since she didn't know what his intentions were. Imo

 

[elliefant]

Kidnap vs abduction according to this law firm :

UK law distinguishes clearly between acts of abduction and kidnap. Abduction is defined as taking a person or child away from a person or place which he or she should lawfully be with. Typically this is where a person takes a child from a person or persons with parental control. The legal definition of kidnapping is to take someone unwillingly and then keep them illegally imprisoned without their valid consent.
Child Abduction Solicitors & Lawyers | London & SE | Lawtons Law Firm

 

[tmar]

He could have used his police i.d to stop her and tell her the path ahead was closed so she had to walk behind the flats. Or he stopped her on other false pretensions.

This charge indicates (I would think), that this Creep blabbed a great deal, about the incident.
: how/why.....

 

[Deathsgrandaughter]

Kidnap vs abduction according to this law firm :

UK law distinguishes clearly between acts of abduction and kidnap. Abduction is defined as taking a person or child away from a person or place which he or she should lawfully be with. Typically this is where a person takes a child from a person or persons with parental control. The legal definition of kidnapping is to take someone unwillingly and then keep them illegally imprisoned without their valid consent.
Child Abduction Solicitors & Lawyers | London & SE | Lawtons Law Firm

Does this then imply that SE was held captive by WC before her death? Rather than abducted, raped and murdered fairly quickly?

 

[JuicyLucy]

Does this then imply that SE was held captive by WC before her death? Rather than abducted, raped and murdered fairly quickly?

I think all we can infer for sure from the charge of kidnap is that she was still alive when the car left Clapham and headed for Kent, and that she did not want to be driven to Kent once she realised what was happening. But I think we have mostly been assuming that much anyway. Beyond that, I think virtually all outcomes are still possible.

JMO, IANAL