VERDICT WATCH UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #24

[Ruthbullock]

@mrjitty. I was wondering what you made of Mr Saxby's closing speech. He seemed to spend a lot of time on possible suicide and very little on much else. I didn't think I'd be very happy if I'd been PR.

I think it became very apparent yesterday and today that we have heard the very barest of bones reported- and I’m guessing it has been the same for the closing statements. I wouldn’t read too much into what was reported (as there was probably a whole lot more)

 

[Newthoughts]

@mrjitty. I was wondering what you made of Mr Saxby's closing speech. He seemed to spend a lot of time on possible suicide and very little on much else. I didn't think I'd be very happy if I'd been PR.

I must admit this has really shaken my faith in the legal system. Libby's while private life was up for speculation when she hadn't done anything wrong and had been discharged from the mental health services. Yet any psych assessments of PR weren't allowed.

And I'm really wondering if this system of trial by jury is the best if the law is so complex. I can't think of anything else fair but there's got to be a less combatative way of finding the truth rather than twisting it to suit.

 

[NorthernSoul]

I don't wish to disappoint you people but it's not inconceivable the jury deliberate for several days before either returning a verdict or advising the judge they aren't going to be able to reach one.

Yes, having been on Jury service myself I am expecting this to take them a few days. And also there could be a scenario if I remember rightly where a certain time passes and the Jury cannot reach a unanimous decision so the Judge then states that a majority decision will suffice, 10 of the 12.

 

[Cherwell]

It can- look at the Bulger case and how many times they have been returned back to prison and it was not for another murder.

Only Venables. As far as I'm aware, the other lad has led a law-abiding life since.
Venables is a good example though.

 

[JosieJo]

Jury to decide if Libby death was murder, manslaughter or tragedy

Tonights round up of events today

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I think it became very apparent yesterday and today that we have heard the very barest of bones reported- and I’m guessing it has been the same for the closing statements. I wouldn’t read too much into what was reported (as there was probably a whole lot more)

Yes, and that the jury have heard a lot more than we have, so we should trust their judgement when the verdict comes in.

 

[JosieJo]

I must admit this has really shaken my faith in the legal system. Libby's while private life was up for speculation when she hadn't done anything wrong and had been discharged from the mental health services. Yet any psych assessments of PR weren't allowed.

And I'm really wondering if this system of trial by jury is the best if the law is so complex. I can't think of anything else fair but there's got to be a less combatative way of finding the truth rather than twisting it to suit.

I think the reason the mental health was discussed was because she had made a very specific reference to jumping in a river which was very relevant

I do think some of the wording of the defence seemed overly harsh though ...based on the updates

 

[Loobyloo]

I'm sure that someone (on here previously) said that the judge can put manslaughter back on the table when they sum up, but I cant remember more details, sorry

Pleased to see from today's news that this is exactly what happened.

 

[Chambo1994]

I think the reason the mental health was discussed was because she had made a very specific reference to jumping in a river which was very relevant

I do think some of the wording of the defence seemed overly harsh though ...based on the updates

To add on to this, it was used because there was evidence that she still did have resenents of her previous health issues. There were numerous parts in the defence closing which suggested we hadn’t heard all the evidence on this during the trail updates.

I can fully understand why people were unhappy to hear it, but if there is evidence to support another outcome then it’s the defence job to explore it, whether we believe it or not

 

[Chambo1994]

Yet any psych assessments of PR weren't allowed.

Where was this stated? I don’t remember this, I could have missed it to be fair! But don’t remember it in any of the updates.

I’ve never seen any trial in the UK where the defence were allowed to refuse psych assessments of the suspect...

 

[Steve2021]

I was just looking up the definition of manslaughter and found this which is pretty inciteful.

"Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm. It doesn’t matter whether or not the offender knew that the act was unlawful and dangerous or whether harm was intended. This is by far the most common type of manslaughter with around 100 offenders being sentenced annually. It often involves deaths that come about as a result of assaults, a typical scenario being the so-called “one punch” manslaughter."

So the jury can only convict on that if they conclude a reasonable person would consider the rape was bound to result in Libby becoming subject to a risk of physical harm. They'd have to conclude PR raped her and that her coming to harm (not necessarily death) was foreseeable.

Those of you who feel there isn't enough to show he deliberately killed her or deliberately caused her physical harm (ie murder), would you be any more sure he left her in such circumstances? If you're thoughts are that you simply don't know what happened, hence it's not guilty to murder, won't that mean you have to go not guilty to manslaughter as well?

Or, can you see yourself in practice thinking I still don't know what happened, but he merits something more than just a rape conviction so I'll give him one for manslaughter regardless?

In my submission, harm is probably not foreseeable if as he claims he left her in the road. You'd thus have to be comfortable in concluding that was a lie for a start. You'll then have to consider whether you are satisfied he chased and or raped her in the park and left her in peril (manslaughter), he chased or raped her in the park and intended to kill or seriously harm her (murder), or if you're just not sure what happened it'd be not guilty to both.

So in practice is it going to be easier to convict for manslaughter, or does it involve the same difficulties as with the murder charge?

Manslaughter explained – Sentencing.

 

[Cherwell]

I’ve never seen any trial in the UK where the defence were allowed to refuse psych assessments of the suspect...

I don't think it normally forms part of the trial. It's taken into account before and/or after, when deciding if the defendant is fit to stand trial, and then sometimes at sentencing to decide where they are to be detained, among other things.

 

[Chambo1994]

I don't think it normally forms part of the trial. It's taken into account before and/or after, when deciding if the defendant is fit to stand trial, and then sometimes at sentencing to decide where they are to be detained, among other things.

Understood!

I was thinking along the lines of when the suspect can claim manslaughter by diminished responsibility, but normally that is the defence who claims that and the prosecution can then use their own doctors to judge whether there were mental health factors which led to the crime.

 

[HLC35]

I was just looking up the definition of manslaughter and found this which is pretty inciteful.

"Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm. It doesn’t matter whether or not the offender knew that the act was unlawful and dangerous or whether harm was intended. This is by far the most common type of manslaughter with around 100 offenders being sentenced annually. It often involves deaths that come about as a result of assaults, a typical scenario being the so-called “one punch” manslaughter."

So the jury can only convict on that if they conclude a reasonable person would consider the rape was bound to result in Libby becoming subject to a risk of physical harm. They'd have to conclude PR raped her and that her coming to harm (not necessarily death) was foreseeable.

Those of you who feel there isn't enough to show he deliberately killed her or deliberately caused her physical harm (ie murder), would you be any more sure he left her in such circumstances? If you're thoughts are that you simply don't know what happened, hence it's not guilty to murder, won't that mean you have to go not guilty to manslaughter as well?

Or, can you see yourself in practice thinking I still don't know what happened, but he merits something more than just a rape conviction so I'll give him one for manslaughter regardless?

In my submission, harm is probably not foreseeable if as he claims he left her in the road. You'd thus have to be comfortable in concluding that was a lie for a start. You'll then have to consider whether you are satisfied he chased and or raped her in the park and left her in peril (manslaughter), he chased or raped her in the park and intended to kill or seriously harm her (murder), or if you're just not sure what happened it'd be not guilty to both.

So in practice is it going to be easier to convict for manslaughter, or does it involve the same difficulties as with the murder charge?

Manslaughter explained – Sentencing.

Very good post

 

[NorthernSoul]

I was just looking up the definition of manslaughter and found this which is pretty inciteful.

"Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm. It doesn’t matter whether or not the offender knew that the act was unlawful and dangerous or whether harm was intended. This is by far the most common type of manslaughter with around 100 offenders being sentenced annually. It often involves deaths that come about as a result of assaults, a typical scenario being the so-called “one punch” manslaughter."

So the jury can only convict on that if they conclude a reasonable person would consider the rape was bound to result in Libby becoming subject to a risk of physical harm. They'd have to conclude PR raped her and that her coming to harm (not necessarily death) was foreseeable.

Those of you who feel there isn't enough to show he deliberately killed her or deliberately caused her physical harm (ie murder), would you be any more sure he left her in such circumstances? If you're thoughts are that you simply don't know what happened, hence it's not guilty to murder, won't that mean you have to go not guilty to manslaughter as well?

Or, can you see yourself in practice thinking I still don't know what happened, but he merits something more than just a rape conviction so I'll give him one for manslaughter regardless?

In my submission, harm is probably not foreseeable if as he claims he left her in the road. You'd thus have to be comfortable in concluding that was a lie for a start. You'll then have to consider whether you are satisfied he chased and or raped her in the park and left her in peril (manslaughter), he chased or raped her in the park and intended to kill or seriously harm her (murder), or if you're just not sure what happened it'd be not guilty to both.

So in practice is it going to be easier to convict for manslaughter, or does it involve the same difficulties as with the murder charge?

Manslaughter explained – Sentencing.

Good post! And I think it sums up how I feel - conflicted! Going exclusively from the evidence there is not enough to convince me personally that PR is guilty of murder beyond all reasonable doubt. And as you say the charge of manslaughter still creates the same difficulties. And yet I voted manslaughter on the Websleuths vote. I guess it's because I feel, as many others do, that PR needs to pay for what happened to Libby because if he had not taken her to the park none of this would have happened. But in reality I still can't say I have no reasonable doubts. What I would say is I won't shed any tears if the Jury find him guilty.

 

[HLC35]

(I appreciate this is O/T and may be removed but coincidentally just having posts on here mentioning Venables and Thompson, I am fed up of seeing the news bite/advert trailer thingy at the top of our thread showing Chucky and find it bad taste, for any discussion on this website)

 

[Dotta]

Understood!

I was thinking along the lines of when the suspect can claim manslaughter by diminished responsibility, but normally that is the defence who claims that and the prosecution can then use their own doctors to judge whether there were mental health factors which led to the crime.

Diminished responsibility is according to me in "crime of passion" - eg a jealous husband kills a wife in a rage - it is not premeditated. Or a defendant is mentally ill and doesn't distinguish between right and wrong. In such a case he is sent to psychiatric Institution instead of prison.

 

[Loobyloo]

14:38
Manslaughter verdict an option

Justice Lambert has told the jury it has occurred to her manslaughter is an option for the verdict but it has not been explained.

She said: “There is no count of manslaughter on the indictment but it can be returned as an alternative verdict to murder.

“That would arise if you were sure Pawel Relowicz assaulted Libby Squire and it caused her death in the sense it made one or more contributions to her death and whether he intended it to.

"If the answer is no, the verdict will be not guilty of murder but you should consider whether that person intended to cause some harm and then if you are sure of that you will return a guilty verdict of manslaughter."

Libby Squire murder trial updates as judge sums up evidence

I wonder why it only just occurred to her?

 

[tedtink]

I wonder why it only just occurred to her?

I think it had occurred to her that she hadn't explained manslaughter yet.

Not that manslaughter had just popped into her head as an alternative verdict.

That's how I read it.

 

[Ruthbullock]

To add on to this, it was used because there was evidence that she still did have resenents of her previous health issues. There were numerous parts in the defence closing which suggested we hadn’t heard all the evidence on this during the trail updates.

I can fully understand why people were unhappy to hear it, but if there is evidence to support another outcome then it’s the defence job to explore it, whether we believe it or not

You beat me to it, just to add those statements that were reported were from statements made by her mum and boyfriend- not dug up from old medical records- but things that they as her family personally felt were relevant to the court case.