If I shot someone in self defence then it's manslaughter.
Self defence is a valid defence to what would otherwise be an unlawful killing, however the force used must be reasonable in the circumstances. For example, if you see someone stealing your car from your garage and you shoot them it would not be considered reasonable as there was no imminent danger to your life, but if you wake up to someone standing over you in your bedroom with a knife to your throat and you manage to successfully strangle them you would almost certainly be exonerated.
The distinction between murder and manslaughter can be difficult to make. It's possible to be convicted of murder without having an intention to kill the victim (in that you were 'only' trying to inflict GBH, or in other words a life threatening injury) whereas you can intend to kill your victim but not be guilty of murder (by way of provocation - manslaughter, or self defence as mentioned above).
If I shot someone I knew and loved, didn't try to resuscitate, didn't call an ambulance but threw their body over a bridge 14 Klms away and lied through my teeth then IMO it's gotta be bloody murder!
You are totally entitled your opinion and at face value it would seem to be a reasonable assumption. However it ignores the many cases where accidental deaths have occurred and the offender has panicked for whatever reason and goes to great lengths to conceal the truth. Knowledge of these cases is usually restricted to legal practitioners, inquisitive laypeople and those with a vested interest so nobody can be faulted for not being aware of the strange things people sometimes do under duress. Your example isn't totally relevant in this case though, simply because gunshots can usually quickly be identified as the cause of death and it's rare (although not unheard of obviously) that a firearm is discharged with non lethal intent. If Allison had indeed been shot the murder conviction would have almost certainly stood.
Is the fact that the Appeal Judges found that 'it could not be ruled out as a possibility' enough grounds to change the legitimate verdict reached by a properly instructed Jury of reasonable persons?
The jury found that the evidence indicated it was 'probable' in this case that he murdered her.
I realise this is nitpicking but if the jury did in fact believe that Gerard
probably intentionally killed Allison, they should have acquitted on the murder charge. Probable is a standard used in civil cases which falls way short of the beyond reasonable doubt standard required in criminal proceedings.
Juries can be funny things, the nature of the selection process and remuneration for empanelled jurors means that overall we get a disproportionate number of unemployed/students (usually younger people), stay at home partners (both male and female) and retirees. The old saying 'jury of your peers' really doesn't hold true as you are drawing from a very limited demographic in most cases.
I'm not for a moment saying that any of the above are not capable of forming a 'correct' view in the eyes of the law, in the majority of cases they do get it right, but it can create interesting dynamics in the jury room. When selecting from the jury pool the lawyers from both the defence and prosecution are acutely aware of a number of factors -
- Older jurors have more life experience but often grew up in more conservative times and bring these values to whatever jury they sit on.
- The reverse is true of the younger generation who generally grew up in a more liberal and tolerant environment.
- Younger jurors can be intimidated by people who are much older than them, even if they believe their opinion is valid.
- Most juries will consist of both introverts and extroverts, the extroverts are obviously more likely to advocate for their position much more passionately than some other jurors (and the extroverts will sometimes base their opinion on a flawed understanding of vital legal concepts).
Most jurors will have had limited or no exposure to the terminology and legal concepts they will be introduced to during trial and some simply won't grasp them. It's like the straight A student who struggles with a solitary subject, it doesn't mean they are stupid, it's just something about that subject is foreign to them and makes the information far more difficult to digest and understand. Of course they receive instructions throughout but it sometimes takes a while for these instructions to sink in, if indeed they ever do. This particularly applies to circumstantial cases which are legally far more complex than 'normal' criminal trials.
My point is that juries are not infallible, they do make errors that need to be corrected. Surprising verdicts can fall on both sides, acquittal and conviction but overwhelmingly the 'iffy' decisions favour conviction. It's very rare for a well prosecuted case to result in acquittal but it's not so rare that a questionable case (at best) results in conviction. If you have a case that a dispassionate observer deems to be 50/50 in terms of conviction prospects, if you put your money on conviction every time you'd be a very wealthy person.
Does every possibility need to be ruled out when the accused himself has not claimed 'accidental death'?
Come on DPP and High Court: the onus is on you to examine this one with future implications for other cases. :furious:
The short answer is yes, absolutely.
To be convicted of murder, the jury must be convinced that the ONLY reasonable possibility is that the accused intended to kill or cause GBH to the victim. It matters not that the defence didn't raise an extensive argument for alternate theories, and while the defence certainly has this option it is left entirely to the jury to consider any and all possible alternative theories which may be consistent with the innocence of the accused. In this case I don't believe the jury properly understood their obligation to discuss and rule out other theories that were not advanced at trial and it's not surprising, they only had a day or so after receiving direction to digest and understand their obligation where it is clear that some posters here still don't understand this obligation weeks/months/years after the fact (with no disrespect intended, it can be difficult to convey through text). The fact that the infamous 'how to deliberate' information was accessed during deliberations is a strong indicator that at least 1 juror (and perhaps many more) had no idea what their role was.
It does not matter that the defence did not advance the accidental death theory at trial (in any depth at least), the jury MUST consider any alternative scenarios in which Gerard may not have intended to kill Allison. The obligation is always with the prosecution to prove, rather than on the defence to disprove. I explained a bit more about the accidental death theory in the 'Theories about Allison' thread -
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...the-murder-of-Allison&p=10842687#post10842687
While there has been a public outcry, this decision was widely expected among the legal community. The jury were handed an extremely complex case and you cannot fault their efforts but sometimes unfortunately they do get it wrong and as I've said before, I expect the Crown application for leave to appeal will fail (as mentioned by Alioop this is not an appeal as yet and IMO will never reach that stage as the QCA judgement is legally sound).
