GUILTY UK - Rebecca Watts, 16, Bristol, 19 Feb 2015 #14

[YidArmyRach]

Murder and manslaughter conviction options laid out to jury

Nathan Matthews and Shauna Hoare both deny murder - but Matthews has already admitted killing Becky.

Mr Justice Dingemans has told the jury the basis on which the jury can find the couple guilty of murder, or Hoare guilty of manslaughter.
•If the jury believe Matthews intended to kill Becky or cause her grievous bodily harm they must convict him of murder.
•If the jury believe Hoare took part in a kidnap plot with the intention of killing Becky or causing her grievous bodily harm to prevent her escape and Matthews intended to kill her or cause her grievous bodily harm in the attack, they must convict her of murder.
•If the jury believe Hoare took part in a kidnap plot reasonably believing Becky would come to some harm, they must convict her of manslaughter.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-murder-trial-live-6797039

If his silly story of kidnapping Becky, forcing her into a suitcase, then into the boot of a car, before tying her to a tree to scare her half to death is believed ..... and if the jury don't believe that MN would attempt to do all of that with SH with him that day, unless she was involved...... then I can see SH being found guilty of this one.

Its not as if he could have reasonably expected to have kept Becky in the boot between 10.30am ish and whenever SH fell asleep that night, before going to the wooded area. And, if he suggested that he could have made an excuse at some point that day to go out without SH with him, surely he could have offered to take the cake tin back without SH?

 

[Clio]

Looking at that again I think she might get manslaughter. They'd just have to prove she was involved in the kidnap plan and if she was I reckon it'd be obvious that Becky would come to "some harm" even if she didn't think she'd be killed.

Still all hinges around whether they believe there was actually a kidnap plan. We haven't heard exactly what the judge said. It may be that because NM admits to a kidnap plan (however ridiculous it sounds) they have been instructed that there was one and all they have to do is to decide is if SH was party to it.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Exactly my feeling - was just writing the same but you beat me to it. !

Same here - but wrote it just before I saw ColourPurple's post. That's reassuring to know that a few of us immediately thought that SH could be found guilty of manslaughter.

 

[ColourPurple]

Exactly my feeling - was just writing the same but you beat me to it. !

Before I'd seen that option I thought she might avoid charges for the actual killing all together, but with that one she doesn't need to be involved in the killing, just in the plan to kidnap knowing it could cause harm to Becky.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Before I'd seen that option I thought she might avoid charges for the actual killing all together, but with that one she doesn't need to be involved in the killing, just in the plan to kidnap knowing it could cause harm to Becky.

Its almost as if that option was created to make something stick!

 

[Clio]

Does it have to be dismembering AND hiding, surely hiding alone would be enough to prevent burial?

You would think so - but both ITV and the Mirror have the same wording.

 

[Yozzer]

Looking at that again I think she might get manslaughter. They'd just have to prove she was involved in the kidnap plan and if she was I reckon it'd be obvious that Becky would come to "some harm" even if she didn't think she'd be killed.

Would use of a stun gun on an innocent 16 year old girl in her own house not be classified as GBH? And therefore, would this not count as 'murder?

If the jury believe Hoare took part in a kidnap plot with the intention of killing Becky or causing her grievous bodily harm to prevent her escape and Matthews intended to kill her or cause her grievous bodily harm in the attack, they must convict her of murder.

 

[Cherwell]

UK & Eire saying probably not going to be able to report any more live stuff this afternoon

Says all journalists have been asked not to report anything live from the summing up this afternoon - "everyone's hands have been legally tied this afternoon".

I bet there is a whole lot of information that has been withheld, so we are really not in a position to know which way this will go. Retribution hinted that there was a lot to come out which wasn't being reported.

 

[ColourPurple]

If his silly story of kidnapping Becky, forcing her into a suitcase, then into the boot of a car, before tying her to a tree to scare her half to death is believed ..... and if the jury don't believe that MN would attempt to do all of that with SH with him that day, unless she was involved...... then I can see SH being found guilty of this one.

Its not as if he could have reasonably expected to have kept Becky in the boot between 10.30am ish and whenever SH fell asleep that night, before going to the wooded area. And, if he suggested that he could have made an excuse at some point that day to go out without SH with him, surely he could have offered to take the cake tin back without SH?

Thinking about it, his kidnap plan didn't need a suitcase at all. He had handcuffs and tape and could have just put a live Becky in the boot and got her back out again at the wooded area. And one thing he forgot was a blindfold to cover her eyes. The tape the had was clear sellotape, was he going to wear the mask in the wooded area too?

 

[Clio]

Thinking about it, his kidnap plan didn't need a suitcase at all. He had handcuffs and tape and could have just put a live Becky in the boot and got her back out again at the wooded area. And one thing he forgot was a blindfold to cover her eyes. The tape the had was clear sellotape, was he going to wear the mask in the wooded area too?

Yup, he specifically said he'd still be wearing the mask in the woods

 

[ColourPurple]

You would think so - but both ITV and the Mirror have the same wording.

I'd be asking the judge for clarification on that part, were I a juror

 

[ColourPurple]

Yup, he specifically said he'd still be wearing the mask in the woods

Hopefully he was going to take it off to drive at least

 

[Clio]

Heart West News ‏@HeartWestNews · 1m1 minute ago
Judge has finished his summary of locations and people involved in trial #beckywatts

ITV Becky Trial ‏@ITVBeckyTrial · 31s31 seconds ago
Court has broken for the day - the judge is half way through his summing up and will continue tomorrow morning. #beckywatts

Heart West News ‏@HeartWestNews · 42s42 seconds ago
Court has finished for today and will resume again tomorrow morning #beckywatts

 

[sar2them1984]

Can anyone say why murder/manslaughter has been lumped with the kidnapping? I'm confused

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Clio]

Can anyone say why murder/manslaughter has been lumped with the kidnapping? I'm confused

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

I think it's because they are using the Joint Enterprise doctrine

"Where P and D participate together in one crime (crime A) and in the course of it P commits a second crime (crime B) which D had foreseen he might commit"

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/joint_enterprise.pdf

In this scenario, D may act as a principal or an accessory to crime A. D is also liable for crime B, as an accessory. It is not necessary that D wants or intends this further offence to be committed, although D must have foreseen that P would or might carry out the conduct element of offence B with the necessary fault element of offence B. This type of secondary liability is sometimes referred to as “parasitic liability” or “parasitic accessory liability”. Most of the case law in this area involves cases of murder and manslaughter, although the principles are applicable to other offences

Example
1 D and P carry out a burglary (offence A). P acts as principal, entering the premises and stealing. D assists or encourages P by acting as a lookout. However, In the course of the burglary, P kills householder V, with intent to kill or do really serious harm. P is liable for murder of V as a principal. D may also be liable for murder, as a secondary party, if D foresaw when participating in the burglary with P, that P might commit a criminal act (use unlawful force) with intent to kill or do really serious bodily harm

As in example 1 above, except that D only foresees that P might commit an unlawful act (use unlawful force) with intent to cause some (less than really serious bodily) harm to V. P is liable for murder of V. D is liable for manslaughter:

 

[Alyce]

Hopefully he was going to take it off to drive at least

Who knows - this is, after all, the man who can wield a circular saw , one handed, with his eyes close, and make precision cuts.

 

[sar2them1984]

I think it's because they are using the Joint Enterprise doctrine

"Where P and D participate together in one crime (crime A) and in the course of it P commits a second crime (crime B) which D had foreseen he might commit"

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/joint_enterprise.pdf

In this scenario, D may act as a principal or an accessory to crime A. D is also liable for crime B, as an accessory. It is not necessary that D wants or intends this further offence to be committed, although D must have foreseen that P would or might carry out the conduct element of offence B with the necessary fault element of offence B. This type of secondary liability is sometimes referred to as “parasitic liability” or “parasitic accessory liability”. Most of the case law in this area involves cases of murder and manslaughter, although the principles are applicable to other offences

Example
1 D and P carry out a burglary (offence A). P acts as principal, entering the premises and stealing. D assists or encourages P by acting as a lookout. However, In the course of the burglary, P kills householder V, with intent to kill or do really serious harm. P is liable for murder of V as a principal. D may also be liable for murder, as a secondary party, if D foresaw when participating in the burglary with P, that P might commit a criminal act (use unlawful force) with intent to kill or do really serious bodily harm

As in example 1 above, except that D only foresees that P might commit an unlawful act (use unlawful force) with intent to cause some (less than really serious bodily) harm to V. P is liable for murder of V. D is liable for manslaughter:

So they're definitely going down that route...Surely they're more likely to gain a conviction if they DON'T go down that route particularly since their evidence of a kidnap plot seems weak

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Alyce]

I cant quite decide whether NM has stitched SH up or given her a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Either, as Clio says, the Jury have already been advised that there was a kidnap plot, in which case all they have to do is link SH to this and they can convict her of murder.
In which case NM has not helped her at all, by making up this stupid story.

or

The Jury have not been directed re the kidnap plot, in which case they can all decide that it is total rubbish. And no kidnap plot, means no conspiracy, means no option to convict SH of murder.
In which case NM has done her a favour

 

[Clio]

So they're definitely going down that route...Surely they're more likely to gain a conviction if they DON'T go down that route particularly since their evidence of a kidnap plot seems weak

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

I don't know for sure but it sounds like it to me. I am guessing here but I think, that because NM has admitted that there was a kidnap plan (albeit a stupid sounding one) it may have to be taken as a given. Therefore as far as conspiracy to kidnap is concerned, all that needs to be decided is whether it was a joint plan or not

 

[YidArmyRach]

Yup, he specifically said he'd still be wearing the mask in the woods

Even though she wouldn't be blindfolded so would be able to see his car - a car which would be parked outside of her house 3 or 4 times a week!