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

[Sooty]

Are there sleuthers who believe that by leaving LS in the area, inside or outside the park, following the sexual encounter (rape) - PR is responsible for her death, however that may have occurred whether by misadventure, misfortune or suicide (but definitely NOT by injuries sustained during the attack) and therefore that should be a ‘guilty’ for manslaughter?

Is PR liable for her welfare in this scenario and how?

Did he owe LS a specific legal duty at this point? (We know he owed her a moral one)

I am just trying to understand how the law applies.

 

[marshy73]

I’ve just been for a walk on Orpf, eerie place on a drizzly dark afternoon (especially knowing what went on). Walking up to the river I was thinking 7.5 minutes is too tight to get everything done what most of us think he’s done, but going back to the car park I thought differently. Im not the fastest runner in the world but I reckon pumped up full of adrenaline I could run from the river to the car 1-1.15 mins. So rape and getting to the river in just over 6 mins IMO is definitely doable

 

[tigerowl]

Are there sleuthers who believe that by leaving LS in the area, inside or outside the park, following the sexual encounter (rape) - PR is responsible for her death, however that may have occurred whether by misadventure, misfortune or suicide (but definitely NOT by injuries sustained during the attack) and therefore that should be a ‘guilty’ for manslaughter?

Is PR liable for her welfare in this scenario and how?

Did he owe LS a specific legal duty at this point? (We know he owed her a moral one)

I am just trying to understand how the law applies.

This is exactly what I am struggling with. I believe he left her there alive after raping her. So morally, anything that happened afterwards that caused her death I hold him responsible for and it is therefore manslaughter.

However

After reading MrJitty and Steve 2021 comments, as there was nothing beyond this point in his actions that took it from leaving her alive to her becoming deceased does it actually mean it is legally manslaughter? If I am understanding what they are saying about the causation piece then it is a no for me. She was not likely to die of anything except possibly hypothermia if he left her there alive and reasonably uninjured. So, the next steps would be all Libby's actions if she then got up and wondered towards the river.

I am finding it really tricky.

 

[tigerowl]

deleted. duplicate post.

 

[Newthoughts]

Thinking about the Andrew Harper case is making me doubt myself as to what I've previously said. (But see the ps at the bottom showing I've now overcome those doubts) If I was on the jury I'd be asking the judge to explain manslaughter to me very clearly.

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.

In the Andrew Harper case the defendants committed a crime, theft of the quad bike. Would one say stealing the bike must subject someone to the risk of harm, doubtful. Maybe it was other (quite possibly motoring offences) associated with their escape that the manslaughter was founded on. Anyone know?

PS I've had a quick look at the judgment in the Harper case appeal. Seems it was not the theft but the driving/agreement to drive in a dangerous manner in their escape that stuffed the defendants on manslaughter. So I've overcome the doubts on my original opinion.

I was under the impression that if the jury had believed BARD that they were dragging AH they would know their actions could cause harm leading to death and it would be murder.

If however they didn't know they were dragging him it would be manslaughter.

The jury bought the bulls@@@ that despite the fact they were veering all over the road to shake him off they didn't realise.

PR cannot claim to have not realised he was raping Libby.

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that he murdered her. To me - even removing emotion and extra knowledge - he's guilty.

She could not have got herself to that river in the state she would have reached and without leaving traces. Past a gate. Across a park, up an incline, thru brambles, down an incline. All whilst her muscles are starting to run out of glycogen. Impossible.

 

[marshy73]

I’ve just been for a walk on Orpf, eerie place on a drizzly dark afternoon (especially knowing what went on). Walking up to the river I was thinking 7.5 minutes is too tight to get everything done what most of us think he’s done, but going back to the car park I thought differently. Im not the fastest runner in the world but I reckon pumped up full of adrenaline I could run from the river to the car 1-1.15 mins. So rape and getting to the river in just over 6 mins IMO is definitely doable

 

[Ruthbullock]

We Can't Consent To This
Im just going to share these cases again. It’s a UK charity fighting for justice for victims of rape or violence during sex. I found it really helpful when thinking about manslaughter or murder and the differences in court between the two. There are many cases on here that will resonate with many of you, some you will have possibly followed in the news, but many more are just quietly heard in courts. If you have doubts about what in previous courts has constituted murder, manslaughter or not guilty, this will show the current standard in court.

 

[Cherwell]

What are peoples thoughts on what the position the jury are in
Struggling on all 3 counts?
Struggling between murder and manslaughter?
Struggling between guilt of causing her death at all and not guilty?

We have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

[catgreen]

We Can't Consent To This
Im just going to share these cases again. It’s a UK charity fighting for justice for victims of rape or violence during sex. I found it really helpful when thinking about manslaughter or murder and the differences in court between the two. There are many cases on here that will resonate with many of you, some you will have possibly followed in the news, but many more are just quietly heard in courts. If you have doubts about what in previous courts has constituted murder, manslaughter or not guilty, this will show the current standard in court.

I keep thinking of Sarah Wellgreen, a totally different and terribly tragic situation too, and during the trial I was so worried that they didn't have enough evidence to convict her ex-partner - but despite the question of whether it was really his car caught on the CCTV and the lack of a body/cause of death, there was sufficient to convict him. I never heard about the testimony of the family in that case (which may have had a great impact on the guilty verdict) but I am hoping that there will be something sufficiently decisive in this case. Like New Thoughts I am wholly convinced that there are too many coincidences and I sincerely hope that he is found guilty of murder even if the evidence is not as clear as 'we' would like

 

[Ruthbullock]

Are there sleuthers who believe that by leaving LS in the area, inside or outside the park, following the sexual encounter (rape) - PR is responsible for her death, however that may have occurred whether by misadventure, misfortune or suicide (but definitely NOT by injuries sustained during the attack) and therefore that should be a ‘guilty’ for manslaughter?

Is PR liable for her welfare in this scenario and how?

Did he owe LS a specific legal duty at this point? (We know he owed her a moral one)

I am just trying to understand how the law applies.

Personally, if he left her there believing she was alive, then I can’t see that he can be found guilty of either murder or manslaughter. Lots of other people had done the same. I don’t see enough evidence for murder, but if we go with SA as a witness and the screaming- I am inclined to think he raped her where he said (he may well have believed at the start it was ok in his head) at some point adrenaline has kicked in and LS came back to reality for a minute, fled into the park to escape, trying to scream whilst running and incapacitated. There is no evidence he threw her into the river (and I think that is more difficult than a lot of people on here give credence to)and as she ran she didn’t realise until to late, the still water and bright lights on the other side , that she was heading into the water. If I was to believe it was manslaughter- it’s on the grounds that he chased her afterwards through the park, not that he placed her in the river, but she ran and fell and he made no attempt to help her. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Manslaughter doesn't need to be bodily harm, but includes unlawful act and dangerous acts - he could be intent on an illegal act like rape/assault, Libby gets away from him and stumbles off into the park. Then for example if he chased/assaulted/terrorised her and she was trying to get away but fell in the river and drowned, he is constructively responsible, even though he did not intend or foresee death.

Basically these are the types of cases where are reasonable person would have realised he was putting the victim at risk of harm

Chain of causation is important here - e.g if he just went home after the rape and Libby drowns 30 mins later, did he still cause the death?

I've just been reading up on the CPS legal guidance on unlawful act manslaughter. [ Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service ]

Relevant parts (IMO):

"The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.

An objective test must be applied to the question as to whether an accused's unlawful act, from which death results, was dangerous - DPP v Newbury (Neil) [1977] Crim. L.R. 359. In judging whether the act was dangerous the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger. The jury has to decide whether D's unlawful act exposed V to the risk of "some' harm - Church [1966] 1 QB 59; R v JM and SM [2012] EWCA Crim 2293.

Unlawful act manslaughter requires proof that the defendant committed a relevant crime, with the mens rea for that crime. The unlawful act must therefore be criminal in nature and must also be dangerous - R v Larkin [1943] KB 174.

The prosecution must establish that the unlawful act was a cause of the death without an intervening act to break the chain of causation – R v Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151 "

"Offences which are criminal only because of the negligent manner of their commission cannot be relied on to prove unlawful act manslaughter - Andrews v DPP [1937] A.C. 576)."


The unlawful act was rape - I don't see the inherent danger to life. Maybe I'm looking at it too literally. I think that danger would be the act of asphyxiation, the prosecution's case, which would be murder.

MOO

 

[Jenesaisquoi]

If Libby was running to get away from further harm that PR may inflict on her, and then fell into the river as a consequence then that is manslaughter at the very least to me. (She could potentially have killed him, for example, and it be self defence in those circumstances). MOO

 

[JosieJo]

Are there sleuthers who believe that by leaving LS in the area, inside or outside the park, following the sexual encounter (rape) - PR is responsible for her death, however that may have occurred whether by misadventure, misfortune or suicide (but definitely NOT by injuries sustained during the attack) and therefore that should be a ‘guilty’ for manslaughter?

Is PR liable for her welfare in this scenario and how?

Did he owe LS a

We have absolutely no way of knowing.

Yes I know ... just wondered what peoples thoughts were based on their own dilemas

 

[Legally Bland]

I've just been reading up on the CPS legal guidance on unlawful act manslaughter. [ Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service ]

Relevant parts (IMO):

"The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.

An objective test must be applied to the question as to whether an accused's unlawful act, from which death results, was dangerous - DPP v Newbury (Neil) [1977] Crim. L.R. 359. In judging whether the act was dangerous the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger. The jury has to decide whether D's unlawful act exposed V to the risk of "some' harm - Church [1966] 1 QB 59; R v JM and SM [2012] EWCA Crim 2293.

Unlawful act manslaughter requires proof that the defendant committed a relevant crime, with the mens rea for that crime. The unlawful act must therefore be criminal in nature and must also be dangerous - R v Larkin [1943] KB 174.

The prosecution must establish that the unlawful act was a cause of the death without an intervening act to break the chain of causation – R v Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151 "

"Offences which are criminal only because of the negligent manner of their commission cannot be relied on to prove unlawful act manslaughter - Andrews v DPP [1937] A.C. 576)."


The unlawful act was rape - I don't see the inherent danger to life. Maybe I'm looking at it too literally. I think that danger would be the act of asphyxiation, the prosecution's case, which would be murder.

MOO

The definition of 'some harm' seems quite broad:

[1966] 1 QB 59:
"… the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm".

JM & Anor, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 2293 (07 November 2012)

BBM.

 

[JosieJo]

Regarding manslaughter...would it not be because he took her to a more isolated place?

If he had raped and left her where he found her perhaps not manslaughter...but because the rape relies on him knowing she could not consent due to her condition.. then surely it follows that he took her to an even more dangerous area to commit the crime knowing the same?

 

[Sarahjo]

Personally, if he left her there believing she was alive, then I can’t see that he can be found guilty of either murder or manslaughter. Lots of other people had done the same. I don’t see enough evidence for murder, but if we go with SA as a witness and the screaming- I am inclined to think he raped her where he said (he may well have believed at the start it was ok in his head) at some point adrenaline has kicked in and LS came back to reality for a minute, fled into the park to escape, trying to scream whilst running and incapacitated. There is no evidence he threw her into the river (and I think that is more difficult than a lot of people on here give credence to)and as she ran she didn’t realise until to late, the still water and bright lights on the other side , that she was heading into the water. If I was to believe it was manslaughter- it’s on the grounds that he chased her afterwards through the park, not that he placed her in the river, but she ran and fell and he made no attempt to help her. JMO

I was thinking along those lines as well, that he initially gave chase but when she started screaming he about turned and ran back (SA sighting) but she carried on running toward the river and he scarpered so didn’t know she actually fell in, that would then account for his return visit, to find out what happened to her..
In that scenario, the fact he initially gave chase I would say would be manslaughter..

 

[Tortoise]

Regarding manslaughter...would it not be because he took her to a more isolated place?

If he had raped and left her where he found her perhaps not manslaughter...but because the rape relies on him knowing she could not consent due to her condition.. then surely it follows that he took her to an even more dangerous area to commit the crime?

What if the same thing had happened on a main road and then she'd stumbled into the road and been run over. Unlikely location but similar facts and he's not taken her anywhere. It's determining where the unlawful act ends. They might decide he was chasing her into the water from her screams, if they're agreed on what to do with timings.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Regarding manslaughter...would it not be because he took her to a more isolated place?

If he had raped and left her where he found her perhaps not manslaughter...but because the rape relies on him knowing she could not consent due to her condition.. then surely it follows that he took her to an even more dangerous area to commit the crime?

Potentially the second location is no worse than the first. Everywhere had dangers- If they didn’t get in the car and the same events played out- LS could have cowered in the darkness of the old convent gardens and succumbed to hypothermia- if she was behind the wall her friends driving around still wouldn’t have seen her. If a traumatised victim ran towards a busy road and ran out in front of a vehicle and got hit and died - where does blame lie?

 

[JosieJo]

What if the same thing had happened on a main road and then she'd stumbled into the road and been run over. Unlikely location but similar facts and he's not taken her anywhere. It's determining where the unlawful act ends. They might decide he was chasing her into the water from her screams, if they're agreed on what to do with timings.

Yes possibly..I was just thinking ..with your example she could have got run over with or without rape ...so I would say not manslaughter...but because he moved her to carry out the rape she encountered a river that she would not have done ? Not sure ..also for example leaving her in a street he could have reasonably thought she would bee seen or be able to flag a bus etc
But by taking her to a remote spot it's reasonable to think he left her far more vulnerable so caused her death ..I think

 

[Ruthbullock]

What if the same thing had happened on a main road and then she'd stumbled into the road and been run over. Unlikely location but similar facts and he's not taken her anywhere. It's determining where the unlawful act ends. They might decide he was chasing her into the water from her screams, if they're agreed on what to do with timings.

You beat me to it! Same idea